Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Pediatrics and Congenital Heart Disease

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) are being used with increased frequency in children and patients with congenital heart disease. Vascular access complexities, intracardiac shunts, and specific anatomies make these devices particularly appealing for some of these patients. Alternative screening, implantation, and programming techniques should be considered based on patient size, body habitus, anatomy, procedural history, and preference. Appropriate and inappropriate shock rates are generally comparable to those seen with transvenous devices. Complications such as infection can occur, although their severity is likely to be less than that seen with transvenous devices. Technical advances are likely to further broaden S-ICD applicability.

Infection in patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: Results of the S-ICD Post Approval Study

BACKGROUND

Early subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) studies included atypical cohorts of patients who were younger with fewer comorbidities. Recent S-ICD studies included patient populations with more comorbidities.

OBJECTIVES

The goals of this study were to determine the incidence and predictors of S-ICD-related infection over a 3-year follow-up period and to use these results to develop an infection risk score.

METHODS

The S-ICD Post Approval Study is a US prospective registry of 1637 patients. Baseline demographic characteristics and outcomes with 3-year postimplantation follow-up were compared between patients with and without device-related infection. A risk score was derived from multivariable proportional hazards analysis of 22 variables.

RESULTS

Infection was observed in 55 patients (3.3%), with 69% of infections occurring within 90 days and a vast majority (92.7%) within 1 year of implantation. Late infections more likely involved device erosion; no infections occurred after year 2. The annual mortality rate postinfection was 0.6%/y. No lead extraction complications or bacteremia related to infection were observed. An infection risk score was created with diabetes, age, prior transvenous ICD implant, and ejection fraction as predictors. Patients with a risk score of ≥3 had an 8.8 hazard ratio (95% confidence interval 2.8-16.3) of infection compared with a 0 risk score.

CONCLUSION

Infection rates in the S-ICD Post Approval Study were similar to other S-ICD populations and not associated with systemic blood-borne infections. Late infection (>1 year) is uncommon and associated with system erosion. A high-risk infection cohort can be identified that may facilitate preventive measures.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator: a systematic review of comparative effectiveness and safety

This systematic review evaluated the clinical effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) in patients at an increased risk of sudden cardiac death and with an ICD indication for primary or secondary prevention. A systematic literature search was conducted in four databases (Medline via Ovid, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and HTA-INAHTA). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled observational studies with ≥100 S-ICD patients and a low to moderate risk of bias were eligible for inclusion. The studies' quality and the available evidence's strength were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, the ROBINS-I tool, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. One RCT, a post hoc analysis of the RCT (n = 849) and four controlled observational studies (n = 7149) were included. The quality of the available evidence was graded as low to very low, except for the primary composite endpoint of the RCT, which was rated as moderate quality. After 4 years, the RCT showed that S-ICD was non-inferior to TV-ICD regarding the composite endpoint of inappropriate shocks and device-related complications (68 [15.1%] vs. 68 [15.7%], hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.71, 1.39], non-inferiority margin 1.45, P = 0.001). The RCT and two observational studies reported statistically significantly fewer lead complications in S-ICD patients (after 4 years: 1.4% vs. 6.6%, HR 0.24, 95% CI [0.10, 0.54]; after 3 years: 0.3% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.03; and after 5 years: 0.8% vs. 11.5%, P = 0.03). Identified evidence about appropriate and inappropriate shocks was inconclusive: The RCT detected statistically significantly more appropriate shocks in patients with S-ICD (83 [19.2%] vs. 57 [11.5%], HR 1.52, 95% CI [1.08, 2.12], P = 0.02), whereas one observational study showed a statistically significantly lower rate in the S-ICD group (9.9%, 95% CI [7.0, 13.9], vs. 13.9%, 95% CI [10.8, 17.8], P = 0.003). Regarding inappropriate shocks, one observational study reported statistically significantly higher rates in the S-ICD cohort (11.9% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.007), whereas the RCT and two other observational studies did not detect a statistically significant difference between the treatment groups (P > 0.05). None of the included studies showed a statistically significant difference in overall mortality and shock efficacy between patients with S-ICD and TV-ICD (P > 0.05). The available evidence is insufficient to show the superiority of S-ICD compared with TV-ICD, hindering the widespread use of the technology. Results of the recently completed ATLAS trial are to be awaited, and the anticipated role of the S-ICD needs to be clearly formulated.

Clinical outcomes of subcutaneous vs. transvenous implantable defibrillator therapy in a polymorbid patient cohort

Background

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has been designed to overcome lead-related complications and device endocarditis. Lacking the ability for pacing or resynchronization therapy its usage is limited to selected patients at risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD).

Objective

The aim of this single-center study was to assess clinical outcomes of S-ICD and single-chamber transvenous (TV)-ICD in an all-comers population.

Methods

The study cohort comprised a total of 119 ICD patients who underwent either S-ICD (n = 35) or TV-ICD (n = 84) implantation at the University Hospital Frankfurt from 2009 to 2017. By applying an inverse probability-weighting (IPW) analysis based on the propensity score including the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) to adjust for potential extracardiac comorbidities, we aimed for head-to-head comparison on the study composite endpoint: overall survival, hospitalization, and device-associated events (including appropriate and inappropriate shocks or system-related complications).

Results

The median age of the study population was 66.0 years, 22.7% of the patients were female. The underlying heart disease was ischemic cardiomyopathy (61.4%) with a median LVEF of 30%. Only 52.9% had received an ICD for primary prevention, most of the patients (67.3%) had advanced heart failure (NYHA class II–III) and 16.8% were in atrial fibrillation. CCI was 5 points in TV-ICD patients vs. 4 points for patients with S-ICD (p = 0.209) indicating increased morbidity. The composite endpoint occurred in 38 patients (31.9 %), revealing no significant difference between patients implanted with an S-ICD or TV-ICD (unweighted HR 1.50, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.78–2.90; p = 0.229, weighted HR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.61–1.50, p = 0.777). Furthermore, we observed no difference in any single clinical endpoint or device-associated outcome, neither in the unweighted cohort nor following inverse probability-weighting.

Conclusion

Clinical outcomes of the S-ICD and TV-ICD revealed no differences in the composite endpoint including survival, freedom of hospitalization and device-associated events, even after careful adjustment for potential confounders. Moreover, the CCI was evaluated in a S-ICD cohort demonstrating higher survival rates than predicted by the CCI in young, polymorbid (S-)ICD patients.

Device-related complications in subcutaneous versus transvenous ICD: a secondary analysis of the PRAETORIAN trial

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is developed to overcome lead-related complications and systemic infections, inherent to transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) therapy. The PRAETORIAN trial demonstrated that the S-ICD is non-inferior to the TV-ICD with regard to the combined primary endpoint of inappropriate shocks and complications. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates all complications in the PRAETORIAN trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The PRAETORIAN trial is an international, multicentre, randomized trial in which 849 patients with an indication for ICD therapy were randomized to receive an S- ICD (N = 426) or TV-ICD (N = 423) and followed for a median of 49 months. Endpoints were device-related complications, lead-related complications, systemic infections, and the need for invasive interventions. Thirty-six device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the S-ICD group of which bleedings were the most frequent. In the TV-ICD group, 49 complications occurred in 44 patients of which lead dysfunction was most frequent (HR: 0.69; P = 0.11). In both groups, half of all complications were within 30 days after implantation. Lead-related complications and systemic infections occurred significantly less in the S-ICD group compared with the TV-ICD group (P < 0.001, P = 0.03, respectively). Significantly more complications required invasive interventions in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group (8.3% vs. 4.3%, HR: 0.59; P = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

This secondary analysis shows that lead-related complications and systemic infections are more prevalent in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group. In addition, complications in the TV-ICD group were more severe as they required significantly more invasive interventions. This data contributes to shared decision-making in clinical practice.

Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Defibrillator Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials and Propensity Score-Matched Studies

Background

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (S‐ICDs) have been of great interest as an alternative to transvenous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (TV‐ICDs). No meta‐analyses synthesizing data from high‐quality studies have yet been published.

Methods and Results

An electronic literature search was conducted to retrieve randomized controlled trials or propensity score–matched studies comparing S‐ICD against TV‐ICD in patients with an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator indication. The primary outcomes were device‐related complications and lead‐related complications. Secondary outcomes were inappropriate shocks, appropriate shock, all‐cause mortality, and infection. All outcomes were pooled under random‐effects meta‐analyses and reported as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. Kaplan–Meier curves of device‐related complications were digitized to retrieve individual patient data and pooled under a 1‐stage meta‐analysis using Cox models to determine hazard ratios (HRs) of patients undergoing S‐ICD versus TV‐ICD. A total of 5 studies (2387 patients) were retrieved. S‐ICD had a similar rate of device‐related complications compared with TV‐ICD (RR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.33–1.04]; P=0.070), but a significantly lower lead‐related complication rate (RR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07–0.29]; P<0.0001). The individual patient data–based 1‐stage stratified Cox model for device‐related complications across 4 studies yielded no significant difference (shared‐frailty HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.61–1.09]; P=0.167), but visual inspection of pooled Kaplan–Meier curves suggested a divergence favoring S‐ICD. Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between both modalities.

Conclusions

S‐ICD is clinically superior to TV‐ICD in terms of lead‐related complications while demonstrating comparable efficacy and safety. For device‐related complications, S‐ICD may be beneficial over TV‐ICD in the long term. These indicate that S‐ICD is likely a suitable substitute for TV‐ICD in patients requiring implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implantation without a pacing indication.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Defibrillator Use in Sports

Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) in young athletes is rare, with an estimated incidence ranging from 0.1 to 2 per 100,000 per athlete year. The creation of SCA registries can help provide accurate data regarding incidence, treatment, and outcomes and help implement primary or secondary prevention strategies that could change the course of these events. Early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation are the most important determinants of survival and neurological prognosis in individuals who suffer from SCA. Compared with the general population, individuals with clinically silent cardiac disease who practice regular physical exercise are at increased risk of SCA events. While the implementation of national preparticipation screening has been largely debated, with no current consensus, the number of athletes who will be diagnosed with cardiac disease and have an indication for implantable defibrillator cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is unknown. Many victims of SCA do not have a previous cardiac diagnosis. Therefore, the appropriate use and availability of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in public spaces is the crucial part of the integrated response to prevent these fatalities both for participating athletes and for spectators. Governments and sports institutions should invest and educate members of the public, security, and healthcare professionals in immediate initiation of CPR and early AED use. Smartphone apps could play an integral part to allow bystanders to alert the emergency services and CPR trained responders and locate and utilize the nearest AED to positively influence the outcomes by strengthening the chain of survival. This review aims to summarize the available evidence on sudden cardiac death prevention among young athletes and to provide some guidance on strategies that can be implemented by governments and on the novel tools that can help save these lives.

Comparative Assessment of Transvenous versus Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Therapy Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous (S-ICD) and transvenous (TV-ICD) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator devices effectively reduce the incidence of sudden cardiac death in patients at a high risk of ventricular arrhythmias. This study aimed to evaluate the safe replacement of TV-ICD with S-ICD based on updated recent evidence.

METHODS

We systematically searched EMBASE, JSTOR, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library on 30 July 2021 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

We identified 26 studies that examined 7542 (58.27%) patients with S-ICD and 5400 (41.72%) with TV-ICD. The findings indicated that, compared to patients with TV-ICD, patients with S-ICD had a lower incidence of defibrillation lead failure (odds ratio [OR], 0.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.98; p = 0.05), lead displacement or fracture (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12-0.86; p = 0.0003), pneumothorax and/or hemothorax (OR: 0.22, 95% CI 0.05, 0.97, p = 0.05), device failure (OR: 0.70, 95% CI 0.51, 0.95, p = 0.02), all-cause mortality (OR: 0.44 [95% CI 0.32, 0.60], p < 0.001), and lead erosion (OR: 0.01, 95% CI 0.00, 0.05, p < 0.001). Patients with TV-ICD had a higher incidence of pocket complications than patients with S-ICD (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.23-3.69; p = 0.007) and a higher but insignificant incidence of inappropriate sensing (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 0.97-12.86; p = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

The S-ICD algorithm was safer and more effective than the TV-ICD system as it minimized the incidence of pocket complications, lead displacement or fracture, inappropriate sensing, defibrillation lead failure, pneumothorax/hemothorax, device failure, lead erosion, and all-cause mortality. Future studies should explore the scope of integrating novel algorithms with the current S-ICD systems to improve cardiovascular outcomes.

Brugada syndrome: Eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator after exercise stress test

INTRODUCTION

Brugada syndrome (BrS) is a channelopathy associated with ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. In patients at high risk of sudden death, an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is indicated. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) are an alternative to transvenous systems, with reduced risk of infection and complications associated with system extraction or explantation.

OBJECTIVE

To test electrocardiographic eligibility for S-ICD placement after exercise stress testing (EST) in patients with BrS.

METHODS

The sample included 35 consecutive patients with BrS. Electrocardiographic eligibility was assessed using the Boston Scientific model 2889 EMBLEM™ S-ICD automated screening tool, in four phases: decubitus and orthostatism, and before and after EST. Those who had at least one acceptable vector in the four measurements were considered eligible.

RESULTS

In this study, 71.4% of patients were male and mean age was 53.86±12 years. In screening prior to EST, 14.3% of patients (n=5) were not eligible for an S-ICD. There was a statistically significant association between ineligibility and presence of complete right bundle branch block and history of syncope. After EST, 16.7% of initially eligible patients no longer had eligible vectors (n=5).

CONCLUSION

In this study, 16.7% of patients previously eligible for an S-ICD were no longer eligible after EST. This result demonstrates the importance of screening after EST in all patients with BrS and with indication for an S-ICD, and may influence decisions concerning which ICD to implant or whether to institute pharmacological measures that avoid inappropriate therapies.

Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable defibrillator: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement is a well-established therapy for prevention of sudden cardiac death. The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) was specifically designed to overcome some of the complications related to the transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD), such as lead complications and systemic infections. Evidence on the comparison of S-ICD vs TV-ICD are limited.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to conduct an updated meta-analysis comparing S-ICD vs TV-ICD.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for studies directly comparing clinical outcomes and complications between S-ICD and TV-ICD. The primary outcome was the composite of clinically relevant complications (lead, pocket, major procedural complications; device-related infections) and inappropriate shocks. Secondary outcomes included death and the individual components of the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies comprising 9073 patients were included in the analysis. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 40% ± 10%; 30% of patients were female; and 73% had an ICD implanted for primary prevention. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of the primary outcome between S-ICD and TV-ICD (odds ratio [OR] 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.19). Patients with S-ICD had lower risk of lead complications (OR 0.14; 95% CI 0.06-0.29; P <.00001) and major procedural complications (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.06-0.57; P = .003) but higher risk of pocket complications (OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.30-3.66; P = .003) compared to those with TV-ICD. No significant differences were found for the other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In patients with an indication for ICD without the need for pacing, TV-ICD and S-ICD are overall comparable in terms of the composite of clinically relevant device-related complications and inappropriate shock.

The entirely subcutaneous ICDTM system in patients with congenital heart disease: experience from a large single-centre analysis

AIMS

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICDTM) is an important advance in device therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Although current guidelines recommend S-ICDTM use, long-term data are still limited, especially in subgroups such as adult patients with congenital heart diseases. This cohort is of high interest because of the difficult anatomic conditions in these patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All S-ICDTM patients with an underlying congenital heart disease (CHD) resulting in an indication for ICD implantation (n = 20 patients) in our large-scaled single-centre S-ICDTM registry (n = 249 patients) were included in this study. Baseline characteristics, appropriate and inappropriate shocks, and complications were documented in a mean follow-up of 36 months. Primary prevention of SCD was the indication for implantation of an S-ICDTM in six patients (30%). Of all 20 patients with an overall mean age of 40.5 ± 11.5 years, 12 were male (60%). The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 46.5 ± 11.3%. Nine episodes of ventricular tachycardia (two monomorphic and seven polymorphic) were adequately terminated in three patients (15%). In two patients, T-Wave-Oversensing resulting in an inappropriate shock was observed, which could be managed by changing the sensing vector or activation of the SMART PASSTM filter. There were no S-ICDTM system-related infections. In one patient, surgical revision was necessary due to a persistent haematoma.

CONCLUSION

The S-ICDTM seems to be a valuable option for the prevention of SCD in patients with various CHDs and complex anatomical anomalies. The S-ICDTM is safe and works effectively, also in these complex patients. Inadequate shock delivery was rare and could be managed by reprogramming.

1-Year Prospective Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes and Shocks: The Subcutaneous ICD Post Approval Study

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated spontaneous arrhythmias and clinical outcomes in the S-ICD System PAS (Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Post Approval Study) cohort.

BACKGROUND

The U.S. S-ICD PAS trial patient population more closely resembles transvenous ICD cohorts than earlier studies, which included many patients with little structural heart disease and few comorbidities. Early outcomes and low peri-operative complication rates were demonstrated in the S-ICD PAS cohort, but there are no data detailing spontaneous arrhythmias and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

The S-ICD PAS prospective registry included 1,637 de novo patients from 86 U.S. centers. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier time to event, and multivariate logistic regression were performed using data out to 365 days.

RESULTS

Patients (68.5% men; mean ejection fraction of 32.0%; 42.9% ischemic; 13.4% on dialysis) underwent implantation for primary (76.6%) or secondary prevention indication. The complication-free rate was 92.5%. The appropriate shock (AS) rate was 5.3%. A total of 395 ventricular tachycardia (VT) or fibrillation (VF) episodes were appropriately sensed, with 131 (33.2%) self-terminating. First and final shock efficacy (up to 5 shocks) for the 127 discrete AS episodes were 91.3% and 100.0%, respectively. Discrete AS episodes included 67 monomorphic VT (MVT) and 60 polymorphic VT (PVT)/VF, with first shock efficacy of 95.2% and 86.7%, respectively. There were 19 storm events in 18 subjects, with 84.2% conversion success. Storm episodes were more likely PVT/VF (98 of 137).

CONCLUSIONS

In the first year after implantation, a predominantly primary prevention population with low ejection fraction demonstrated a high complication-free rate and spontaneous event shock efficacy for MVT and PVT/VF arrhythmias at rapid ventricular rates. (Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator System Post Approval Study [S-ICD PAS; NCT01736618).

Usefulness of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in patients with Brugada syndrome

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are the main therapy to prevent sudden cardiac death in patients with Brugada syndrome (BrS). The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) can eliminate lead-associated complications compared with transvenous ICD (TV-ICD). However, S-ICD is susceptible to T-wave oversensing (TWOS) and may result in more frequent inappropriate shocks in patients with BrS. This study aimed to compare inappropriate shocks between TV-ICD and S-ICD in patients with BrS. We enrolled 32 patients with BrS (including one woman; mean age 52 ± 18 years) who were implanted with ICD (23 TV-ICDs and 9 S-ICDs) between January 2002 and November 2018 in Oita University Hospital. We carried out a standard surface electrocardiogram (ECG) screening tests in both supine and standing positions prior to S-ICD implantation. The patients received routine clinical review every month and device monitoring every 4 months. The period of follow-up was 129 ± 51 months. Six patients with BrS and TV-ICDs experienced inappropriate shocks (26%) with their ICD therapy. In contrast, two patients with BrS and S-ICDs experienced inappropriate shocks (22%). There was no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.82). Although one case in the S-ICD group experienced TWOS-induced inappropriate shock, SMART Pass (new high-pass filter) prevented the subsequent recurrence of inappropriate shocks during ICD therapy. Our results suggest that S-ICD is not inferior to TV-ICD in the incidence of inappropriate shocks. SMART Pass may be a useful tool to prevent inappropriate ICD shocks by TWOS in patients with BrS.

Real-world performance of the atrial fibrillation monitor in patients with a subcutaneous ICD

Introduction

The third‐generation subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD) (EMBLEM™ A219, Boston Scientific) contains a new diagnostic tool to detect atrial fibrillation (AF) in S‐ICD patients, without the use of an intracardiac lead. This is the first study to evaluate the performance of the S‐ICD AF monitor (AFM).

Methods

The AFM algorithm analyzes a subcutaneous signal for the presence of AF, similar to the signals collected by implantable and wearable diagnostic devices. The AFM algorithm combines heart rate (HR) scatter analysis with an HR histogram. The algorithm was tested against publicly available electrocardiogram databases (simulated performance). Real‐world performance of the algorithm was evaluated by using the S‐ICD LATITUDE remote monitoring (RM) database.

Results

The simulated performance of the AFM algorithm resulted in a sensitivity of 95.0%, specificity of 100.0%, and positive predictive value (PPV) of 100.0%. To evaluate the real‐world performance of the AFM, 7744 S‐ICD devices were followed for up to 30 months by RM, whereof 99.5% had the AFM enabled. A total of 387 AF episodes were randomly chosen for adjudication, resulting in a PPV of 67.7%. The main cause of misclassification was atrial and ventricular ectopy.

Conclusion

The AFM exhibited a very high sensitivity and specificity in a simulated setting, designed to maximize PPV in order to minimize the clinical burden of reviewing falsely detected AF events. The real‐world performance of the AFM, enabled in 99.5% of S‐ICD patients, is a PPV of 67.7%.

Impact of diabetes as a risk factor in patients undergoing subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation: A single-centre study

INTRODUCTION

Patients with diabetes mellitus are known to carry an increased risk for surgical site infections and perioperative complications. The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator is an established treatment option in patients at risk for sudden cardiac death especially with an increased risk for infection over time.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Forty-eight patients (mean age = 55.0 ± 21.3 years, 31.3% patients with diabetes mellitus, 75% male) who underwent consecutive subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator surgery between February 2016 and May 2019 were retrospectively analysed. Overall adverse events including relevant bleeding complications, any surgical wound problems and infections requiring reoperation or device malfunction were evaluated as primary combined safety endpoint. Patients with diabetes mellitus tended to be older with a higher body mass index compared to non-diabetes mellitus. Procedure duration and postsurgery hospital days were not different in diabetes mellitus versus non-diabetes mellitus patients. Analysis of the primary combined endpoint showed no significant difference but a trend towards higher event rates in the diabetes mellitus group (diabetes mellitus vs non-diabetes mellitus: 20% vs 12.1%, p = 0.119).

CONCLUSION

Diabetes mellitus is a frequent and relevant variable in patients undergoing subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation represented by 31.3% in this consecutive cohort. Our results suggest that diabetes mellitus is not associated with a prolonged hospital stay or increased rate of periprocedural adverse events.

Need for pacing in patients who qualify for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: Clinical implications for the subcutaneous ICD

BACKGROUND

Implantation of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is spreading and has been shown to be safe and effective; however, it does not provide brady-pacing. Currently, data on the need for brady-pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation in patients with ICD indication are limited.

METHODS

The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT)-II enrolled post-MI patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF ≤ 35%), randomized to either an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or conventional medical therapy. Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariate Cox models were performed to assess the incidence and predictors of pacemaker (PM), or CRT implantation in the conventional arm of MADIT-II, after excluding 32 patients (6.5%) with a previously implanted PM.

RESULTS

During the median follow-up of 20 months, 24 of 458 patients (5.2%) were implanted with a PM or a CRT (19 PM, 5 CRT). Symptomatic sinus bradycardia was the primary indication for PM implantation (n = 9, 37%), followed by AV block (n = 5, 21%), tachy-brady syndrome (n = 4, 17%), and carotid sinus hypersensitivity (n = 1, 4%). Baseline PR interval >200 ms (HR = 3.07, 95% CI: 1.24-7.57, p = .02), and CABG before enrollment (HR = 6.88, 95% CI: 1.58-29.84, p = .01) predicted subsequent PM/CRT implantation. Patients with PM/CRT implantation had a significantly higher risk for heart failure (HR = 2.67, 95% CI = 1.38-5.14, p = .003), but no increased mortality risk (HR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.46-2.46, p = .89).

CONCLUSION

The short-term need for ventricular pacing or CRT implantation in patients with MADIT-II ICD indication was low, especially in those with a normal baseline PR interval, and such patients are appropriate candidates for the subcutaneous ICD.

Outcome differences and device performance of the subcutaneous ICD in patients with and without structural heart disease

BACKGROUND

The performance of the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD™) has been described in different kinds of heart disease and has been proven to be an important advance in prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). While positive experiences with the S-ICD™ initially came from collectives of patients without structural heart diseases, positive results have also been collected from cohorts with structural heart disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All S-ICD™ patients with either ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) as the main indication for ICD implantation (n = 144 patients) or electrical heart disease/idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (n = 83 patients) in our large-scaled single-center S-ICD™ registry were included in this study. Baseline characteristics, appropriate and inappropriate shocks, and complications were documented in a mean follow-up of 18 ± 15 months.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were significantly different between the two groups in most categories. In contrast, there was no difference concerning neither appropriate nor inappropriate shock delivery between the two groups. Also other outcome parameters such as need for surgical revisions and all-cause mortality did not differ. There was a significant difference between the first- and second-generation S-ICDs™ in inadequate shocks mainly driven by patients with HCM.

CONCLUSION

In our study, S-ICD™ performance was similar in patients with and without structural heart disease. Decision pro- or contra-S-ICD™ should be made rather on the basis of expected shock rate and probability of the need for future anti-tachycardia or anti-bradycardia pacing than in dependence of the underlying heart disease.

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in review

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) is a completely extrathoracic device that has recently been FDA approved for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in select populations. Although the transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) has a proven mortality benefit in multiple patient populations, there are significant risks both with implantation and years after its placement. The S-ICD may help prevent some of these complications. Currently, the S-ICD is typically implanted in patients with prior device infection or at an increased risk for an infection, younger patients with difficult venous access related to either hemodialysis or difficult cardiac anatomy, patients who live active lifestyles, and those who may outlive the TV-ICD leads. There is an absolute contraindication for S-ICD implantations for patients who need pacing either for ventricular tachycardia or bradycardia because this device cannot perform these functions. To date, there are no randomized controlled trial (RCT) data evaluating the safety and efficacy of this relatively new device. Observational studies of both the S-ICD alone and in comparison with the TV-ICD have showed promising results, including a decrease in lead-related and periprocedural complications as well as a high level of effectiveness at terminating ventricular arrhythmias. These analyses over time may have contributed to the evolution and comfortability with the S-ICD system, as physicians are more often referring for and/or implanting this device for patients with appropriate indications. Furthermore, inappropriate shock rates with the S-ICD have decreased over time especially with dual zone programming. This review summarizes the results of a multitude of observational studies with respect to patient selection for the S-ICD, complication rates, appropriate and inappropriate shock rates, and programming. This review also tackles current ongoing randomized trials. Although the results of ongoing trials will be helpful, there is still a continued need to evaluate the efficacy of the S-ICD in broader patient populations including patients with several comorbidities and older patients so that more patients can be considered for this potentially lifesaving device.

Efficacy, safety, and in-hospital outcomes of subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable defibrillator therapy: A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Lead-related complication is an important drawback of trans-venous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (TV-ICD). The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) was developed to overcome ICD lead associated complications; however, whether the S-ICD confers enhanced clinical benefits compared with TV-ICD remains unclear. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess TV-ICD and S-ICD for safety, efficacy, and in-hospital outcomes in the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients not requiring pacing.

METHODS

The Medline, PubMed, EmBase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing TV-ICD and S-ICD.

RESULTS

A total of 9 eligible studies, including 5 propensity-matched case-control, 3 retrospective, and 1 cross-sectional studies were identified, assessing 7361 patients in all. Pool analyses demonstrated that SICD were associated with lower lead-related complication rates [odds ratio (OR) = 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-0.33; I = 0%], and S-ICD was more beneficial in terms of reducing ICD shocks [OR = 0.48; 95% CI 0.32-0.72, I = 4%]. In addition, the patients administered S-ICD tend to have shorter length of hospital stay after implantation (SMD = -0.06; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.00, I = 0%) and reduce total complication rates (OR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.50-1.03; I = 18%), non-decreased quality of life (QoL). Moreover, both devices appeared to perform equally well with respect to infection rate and death.

CONCLUSIONS

Available overall data suggested that S-ICD is associated with reducing lead-related complications, ICD shocks. In addition, S-ICD has tendency to shorten hospitalization and reduce total complications, although the difference is no significant. Equivalent death rate, infection, and QoL were found between 2 groups. Therefore, S-ICD could be considered an alternative approach to TV-ICD in appropriate patients for SCD prevention.

Feasibility of entirely subcutaneous ICD™ systems in patients with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD™) is an important advance in device therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Although current guidelines recommend S-ICD™ use, long-term data are still limited, especially in subgroups. Among several cardiac diseases that prone to SCD, coronary artery disease (CAD) carries several peculiarities that may hamper S-ICD™ therapy in this cohort. CAD can lead to an ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) with a reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and bundle branch blocks, which can be difficult for ICD sensing and discrimination of arrhythmia. CAD is mainly driven by risk factors such as diabetes mellitus, which put these patients at an elevated risk for infectious complications of cardiac devices. Furthermore, in ICM myocardial scars are frequent and are a potential substrate for ventricular tachycardia, which may be accessible for antitachycardia pacing. At the moment, it remains unclear if there is a value of S-ICD™ therapy in this subgroup. Therefore, this study analysed patients with CAD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All S-ICD™ patients with CAD as the main indication for ICD implantation (n = 45 patients) in our large-scaled single-center S-ICD™ registry (n = 249 patients) were included in this study. Baseline characteristics, appropriate and inappropriate shocks, and complications were documented in a mean follow-up of 22.5 ± 8.3 months.

RESULTS

Primary prevention of SCD was the indication for implantation of an S-ICD™ in 28 patients (62%). Of all 45 patients with an overall mean age of 58.1 ± 11.4 years, 40 were male (88%). The mean LVEF was 37.7 ± 12.6%. Three episodes of ventricular arrhythmia (one monomorphic, one polymorphic, one ventricular fibrillation) were adequately terminated in three patients (7%). In only one patient, oversensing resulting in an inappropriate shock was observed, which could be managed by changing the sensing vector. 15 of the examined 45 patients previously had a transvenous ICD, which was explanted due to system-related infections. In only two patients, S-ICD™ was changed to transvenous ICD because of the need of antibradycardia stimulation. There were no S-ICD™ system-related infections.

CONCLUSION

The S-ICD™ seems to be a valuable option for the prevention of SCD in CAD patients. Patients with systemic infections of a transvenous ICD and, therefore, a need for an alternative might benefit from the absence of intracardiac leads as the S-ICD™ is safe and works flawlessly in these patients. Inadequate shock delivery was very rare, while every episode of ventricular arrhythmia was terminated by the first shock.

Spotlight on S-ICD™ therapy: 10 years of clinical experience and innovation

Subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD™) therapy has been established in initial clinical trials and current international guideline recommendations for patients without demand for pacing, cardiac resynchronization, or antitachycardia pacing. The promising experience in ‘ideal’ S-ICD™ candidates increasingly encourages physicians to provide the benefits of S-ICD™ therapy to patients in clinical constellations beyond ‘classical’ indications of S-ICD™ therapy, which has led to a broadening of S-ICD™ indications in many centres. However, the decision for S-ICD™ implantation is still not covered by controlled randomized trials but rather relies on patient series or observational studies. Thus, this review intends to give a contemporary update on available empirical evidence data and technical advancements of S-ICD™ technology and sheds a spotlight on S-ICD™ therapy in recently discovered fields of indication beyond ideal preconditions. We discuss the eligibility for S-ICD™ therapy in Brugada syndrome as an example for an adverse and dynamic electrocardiographic pattern that challenges the S-ICD™ sensing and detection algorithms. Besides, the S-ICD™ performance and defibrillation efficacy in conditions of adverse structural remodelling as exemplified for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is discussed. In addition, we review recent data on potential device interactions between S-ICD™ systems and other implantable cardio-active systems (e.g. pacemakers) including specific recommendations, how these could be prevented. Finally, we evaluate limitations of S-ICD™ therapy in adverse patient constitutions, like distinct obesity, and present contemporary strategies to assure proper S-ICD™ performance in these patients. Overall, the S-ICD™ performance is promising even for many patients, who may not be ‘classical’ candidates for this technology.

EHRA White Paper: knowledge gaps in arrhythmia management—status 2019

Clinicians accept that there are many unknowns when we make diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. Acceptance of uncertainty is essential for the pursuit of the profession: bedside decisions must often be made on the basis of incomplete evidence. Over the years, physicians sometimes even do not realize anymore which the fundamental gaps in our knowledge are. As clinical scientists, however, we have to halt and consider what we do not know yet, and how we can move forward addressing those unknowns. The European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) believes that scanning the field of arrhythmia / cardiac electrophysiology to identify knowledge gaps which are not yet the subject of organized research, should be undertaken on a regular basis. Such a review (White Paper) should concentrate on research which is feasible, realistic, and clinically relevant, and should not deal with futuristic aspirations. It fits with the EHRA mission that these White Papers should be shared on a global basis in order to foster collaborative and needed research which will ultimately lead to better care for our patients. The present EHRA White Paper summarizes knowledge gaps in the management of atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia/sudden death and heart failure.

Effect of diurnal variations in the QRS complex and T waves on the eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) are an established therapy for preventing sudden cardiac death. However, a considerable number of patients still undergo inappropriate shocks even after conventional preimplantation electrocardiographic (ECG) screening.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to elucidate the additional effect of diurnal variations in the QRS complex and T waves of 24-hour Holter screening on S-ICD eligibility.

METHODS

Patients with transvenous ICDs who did not need pacing were selected for the study. The ECG was recorded by placing the electrodes to simulate the 3 sensing vectors of the S-ICD, with the patient in the standing and supine positions (conventional), during exercise, and during 24-hour Holter screening. We investigated the additional discrimination of diurnal variations in patients ineligible for S-ICDs as well as characteristics of those patients.

RESULTS

Of the 86 patients (82% men; mean age 54±16 years) analyzed by all 3 screenings, 2 (2.3%) and 3 (3.4%) were considered ineligible by conventional and exercise screening, respectively. An additional 21 patients (24.4%) were found ineligible through Holter screening. A multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that Brugada syndrome and an increased QRS duration per millisecond were associated with ineligibility (odds ratio 5.74; 95% confidence interval 1.74-20.2; P = .003 and odds ratio 1.04; 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.07; P = .007, respectively). T-wave oversensing was mostly observed during 0-6 AM, but no significant diurnal variations were observed in the incorrect QRS profiles.

CONCLUSION

The detection of diurnal variations through Holter monitoring in addition to conventional screening is expected to be useful for determining S-ICD eligibility.

Rationale and design of the randomized prospective ATLAS study: Avoid Transvenous Leads in Appropriate Subjects

BACKGROUND

The defibrillator lead is the weakest part of the transvenous (TV) implantable cardioverter defibrillation (ICD) system and a frequent cause of morbidity. Lead dislodgement, cardiac perforation, insertion-related trauma including pneumothorax and vascular injury, are common early complications of TV-ICD implantation. Venous occlusion, tricuspid valve dysfunction, lead fracture and lead insulation failure are additional, later complications. The introduction of a totally sub-cutaneous ICD (S-ICD) may reduce these lead-related issues, patient morbidity, hospitalizations and costs. However, such benefits compared to the TV-ICD have not been demonstrated in a randomized trial.

DESIGN

ATLAS (Avoid Transvenous Leads in Appropriate Subjects) is a multi-centered, randomized, open-label, parallel group trial. Patients younger than 60 years are eligible. If older than 60 years, patients are eligible if they have an inherited heart rhythm disease, or risk factors for ICD-related complication, such as hemodialysis, a history of ICD or pacemaker infection, heart valve replacement, or severe pulmonary disease. This study will determine if using an S-ICD compared to a TV-ICD reduces a primary composite outcome of perioperative complications including pulmonary or pericardial perforation, lead dislodgement or dysfunction, tricuspid regurgitation and ipsilateral venous thrombosis. Five hundred patients will be enrolled from 14 Canadian hospitals, and data collected to both early- (at 6 months) and mid-term complications (at 24 months) as well as mortality and ICD shock efficacy.

SUMMARY

The ATLAS randomized trial is comparing early- and mid-term vascular and lead-related complications among S-ICD versus TV-ICD recipients who are younger or at higher risk of ICD-related complications.

Defibrillation Threshold Testing: Current Status

When the transvenous ICD initially came into use for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death, defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing was universally performed. However, DFT testing is no longer routinely recommended for transvenous ICD implantation except in certain situations. Risk scores can help guide the decision to perform DFT testing. The subcutaneous ICD represents an area of uncertainty, with limited data available regarding the role of DFT testing in these devices. Current guidelines give a class I recommendation for performing DFT testing at the time of implant. Further studies are needed before this recommendation can be safely dismissed.

An Overview of Clinical Outcomes in Transvenous and Subcutaneous ICD Patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Clear guidelines on when to select a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) over a transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) are lacking. This review will provide an overview of the most recent clinical data on S-ICD and TV-ICD therapy by pooling comparison studies in order to aid clinical decision making.

RECENT FINDINGS

Pooling of observational-matched studies demonstrated an incidence rate ratio (IRR) for device-related complication of 0.90 (95% CI 0.58-1.42) and IRR for lead-related complications of 0.15 (95% CI 0.06-0.39) in favor of S-ICD. The IRR for device infections was 2.00 (95% CI 0.95-4.22) in favor of TV-ICD. Both appropriate shocks (IRR 0.67 (95% CI 0.42-1.06)) and inappropriate shocks (IRR 1.17 (95% CI 0.77-1.79)) did not differ significantly between both groups. With randomized data underway, the observational data demonstrate that the S-ICD is associated with reduced lead complications, but this has not yet resulted in a significant reduction in total number of complications compared to TV-ICDs. New technologies are expected to make the S-ICD a more attractive alternative.