Electromagnetic force from electric vehicles: Potential electromagnetic interference source for subcutaneous implantable defibrillator

BACKGROUND

Electromagnetic interference (EMI) encompasses electromagnetic field signals that can be detected by a device's circuitry, potentially resulting in adverse effects such as inaccurate sensing, pacing, device mode switching, and defibrillation. EMI may impact the functioning of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices (CIEDs) and lead to inappropriate therapy.

METHOD

An experimental measuring device, a loop antenna mimicking the implantable cardioverted defibrillator (ICD) antenna, was developed, and validated at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and sent to Wright State University for testing. Two sets of measurements were conducted while the vehicle was connected to a 220-Volt outlet with charging at ON and OFF. Each measurement set involved three readings at various locations, with the antenna oriented in three different positions to account for diverse patient postures. The experiment utilized a Tesla Model 3 electric vehicle (EV), assessing scenarios both inside and outside the car, including the driver's seat, driver's seat floor, passenger's seat, rear seat, rear seat floor, cup holder, charging port (car), and near the charging station.

RESULTS

The detected voltage (max 400 to 504 millivolts) around the cup holder inside the car differed from all other measurement scenarios.

CONCLUSION

The investigation highlights the identification of EMI signals originating from an EV) that could potentially interrupt the functionality of a Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (S-ICD). These signals fell within the R-wave Spectrum of 30-300 Hz. Further in-vivo studies are essential to determine accurately the level of interference between S-ICDs and EMI from Electric Vehicles.

More than 30 years of Brugada syndrome: a critical appraisal of achievements and open issues

Over the last three decades, what is referred to as Brugada syndrome (BrS) has developed from a clinical observation of initially a few cases of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in the absence of structural heart disease with ECG signs of "atypical right bundle brunch block" to a predominantly electrocardiographic, and to a lesser extent genetic, diagnosis. Today, BrS is diagnosed in patients without overt structural heart disease and a spontaneous Brugada type 1 ECG pattern regardless of symptoms. The diagnosis of BrS is less clear in those with an only transient or drug-induced type 1 Brugada pattern, but should be considered in the presence of an arrhythmic syncope, family history of BrS, or family history of sudden death. In addition to survived cardiac arrest, syncope is probably the single most decisive risk marker for future arrhythmias. For asymptomatic BrS, risk stratification remains challenging. General recommendations to lower the risk in BrS include avoidance of drugs/agents known to induce and/or increase right precordial ST-segment elevation, including treatment of fever with antipyretic drugs. Several ECG markers that have been associated with an increased risk of SCD have been incorporated into a recently published risk score for BrS. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the status of risk stratification and to illustrate open issues und gaps in evidence in BrS.

Validation of the PRAETORIAN score in a large subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator collective: Usefulness in clinical routine

BACKGROUND

To assess the risk of unsuccessful conversion of ventricular fibrillation during defibrillation testing (DFT) with the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD), the PRAETORIAN score has been proposed.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to validate the PRAETORIAN score in a large S-ICD collective.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center analysis of S-ICD patients receiving intraoperative DFT was performed. DFT was performed using a stepwise protocol with 65-J standard polarity, change of polarity, increase to 80 J, and repositioning if necessary. If all DFTs failed, we switched to a transvenous ICD.

RESULTS

Overall, 398 patients were analyzed (268 male [67.3%]; mean age 42.4 ± 15.9 years; mean body mass index [BMI] 25.9 ± 4.8 kg/m2). Successful DFT with the first ICD shock was observed in 264 patients (66.3%). One hundred fourteen patients were defibrillated with the second (n = 104) or third (n = 10) DFT after changing shock polarity and/or shock energy. Overall, 20 patients needed at least 3 DFT (ie, 80 J and/or re-positioning). The majority (n = 88 [65.7%]) of DFT failures occurred before 2015 with the first-generation S-ICD. PRAETORIAN score was an independent predictor of DFT failure (odds ratio [OR] 1.007; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.003-1.011 P ≤.001), while whereas BMI alone was not (P = .31). Presence of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.3-4.4; P = .004) was predictive for at least 1 unsuccessful DFT in our multivariate regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

PRAETORIAN score proved to be a useful and valid predictive tool for successful DFT, whereas BMI only had a limited role. Patients with HCM were at increased risk for DFT failure or needed higher DFT energy.

The new European Society of Cardiology guideline for the management of cardiomyopathies: key messages for cardiac electrophysiologists

Electrocardiographic findings and arrhythmias are common in cardiomyopathies. Both may be an early indication of a specific diagnosis or may occur due to myocardial fibrosis and/or reduced contractility. Brady- and tachyarrhythmias significantly contribute to increased morbidity and mortality in patients with cardiomyopathies. Antiarrhythmic therapy including risk stratification is often challenging and plays a major role for these patients. Thus, an "electrophysiological" perspective on guidelines on cardiomyopathies may be warranted. As the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has recently published a new guideline for the management of cardiomyopathies, this overview aims to present key messages of these guidelines. Innovations include a new phenotype-based classification system with emphasis on a multimodal imaging approach for diagnosis and risk stratification. The guideline includes detailed chapters on dilated and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and their phenocopies, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, and restrictive cardiomyopathy as well as syndromic and metabolic cardiomyopathies. Patient pathways guide clinicians from the initial presentation to diagnosis. The role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging and genetic testing during diagnostic work-up is stressed. Concepts of rhythm and rate control for atrial fibrillation have led to new recommendations, and the role of defibrillator therapy in primary prevention is discussed in detail. Whilst providing general guidelines for management, the primary objective of the guideline is to ascertain the disease etiology and disease-specific, individualized management.

Usefulness of the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score in a Large Mixed Patient Cohort of Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death

Background: Decision-making in primary prevention is not always trivial and many clinical scenarios are not reflected in current guidelines. To help evaluate a patient’s individual risk, a new score to predict the benefit of an implantable defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention, the MADIT-ICD benefit score, has recently been proposed. The score tries to predict occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias and non-arrhythmic death based on data from four previous MADIT trials. We aimed at examining its usefulness in a large single-center register of S-ICD patients with various underlying cardiomyopathies. Methods and results: All S-ICD patients with a primary preventive indication for ICD implantation from our large single-center database were included in the analysis (n = 173). During a follow-up of 1227 ± 978 days, 27 patients developed sustained ventricular arrhythmias, while 6 patients died for non-arrhythmic reasons. There was a significant correlation for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) (n = 29, p = 0.04) to the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmia. However, the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias could not sufficiently be predicted by the MADIT-ICD VT/VF score (p = 0.3) in patients with (n = 142, p = 0.19) as well as patients without structural heart disease (n = 31, p = 0.88) and patients with LV-EF < 35%. Of the risk factors included in the risk score calculation, only non-sustained ventricular tachycardias were significantly associated with sustained ventricular arrhythmias (p = 0.02). Of note, non-arrhythmic death could effectively be predicted by the proposed non-arrhythmic mortality score as part of the benefit score (p = 0.001, r = 0.3) also mainly driven by ICM patients. Age, diabetes mellitus, and a BMI < 23 kg/m2 were key predictors of non-arrhythmic death implemented in the score. Conclusion: The MADIT-ICD benefit score adds a new option to evaluate expected benefit of ICD implantation for primary prevention. In a large S-ICD cohort of primary prevention, the value of the score was limited to patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Future research should evaluate the performance of the score in different subgroups and compare it to other risk scores to assess its value for daily clinical practice.

Ventricular arrhythmia management in patients with genetic cardiomyopathies

Genetic cardiomyopathies are associated with increased risk for cardiac arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. The management of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) in patients with these conditions can be nuanced due to particular disease-based considerations, yet data specifically addressing management in these patients are limited. Here we describe the current evidence-based approach to the management of ventricular rhythm disorders in patients with genetic forms of cardiomyopathy, namely, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy, left ventricular noncompaction, and Brugada syndrome, including recommendations from consensus guideline statements when available.

Comparative Effectiveness of Implantable Defibrillators for Asymptomatic Brugada Syndrome: A Decision-Analytic Model

Background

Optimal management of asymptomatic Brugada syndrome (BrS) with spontaneous type I electrocardiographic pattern is uncertain.

Methods and Results

We developed an individual‐level simulation comprising 2 000 000 average‐risk individuals with asymptomatic BrS and spontaneous type I electrocardiographic pattern. We compared (1) observation, (2) electrophysiologic study (EPS)‐guided implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD), and (3) upfront ICD, each using either subcutaneous or transvenous ICD, resulting in 6 strategies tested. The primary outcome was quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs), with cardiac deaths (arrest or procedural‐related) as a secondary outcome. We varied BrS diagnosis age and underlying arrest rate. We assessed cost‐effectiveness at $100 000/QALY. Compared with observation, EPS‐guided subcutaneous ICD resulted in 0.35 QALY gain/individual and 4130 cardiac deaths avoided/100 000 individuals, and EPS‐guided transvenous ICD resulted in 0.26 QALY gain and 3390 cardiac deaths avoided. Compared with observation, upfront ICD reduced cardiac deaths by a greater margin (subcutaneous ICD, 8950; transvenous ICD, 6050), but only subcutaneous ICD improved QALYs (subcutaneous ICD, 0.25 QALY gain; transvenous ICD, 0.01 QALY loss), and complications were higher. ICD‐based strategies were more effective at younger ages and higher arrest rates (eg, using subcutaneous devices, upfront ICD was the most effective strategy at ages 20–39.4 years and arrest rates >1.37%/year; EPS‐guided ICD was the most effective strategy at ages 39.5–51.3 years and arrest rates 0.47%–1.37%/year, and observation was the most effective strategy at ages >51.3 years and arrest rates <0.47%/year). EPS‐guided subcutaneous ICD was cost‐effective ($80 508/QALY).

Conclusions

Device‐based approaches (with or without EPS risk stratification) can be more effective than observation among selected patients with asymptomatic BrS. BrS management should be tailored to patient characteristics.

Evaluation of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator performance in patients with ion channelopathies from the EFFORTLESS cohort and comparison with a meta-analysis of transvenous ICD outcomes

Background

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an alternative to conventional transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) therapy to reduce lead complications.

Objective

To evaluate outcomes in channelopathy vs patients with structural heart disease in the EFFORTLESS-SICD Registry and with a previously reported TV-ICD meta-analysis in channnelopathies.

Methods

The EFFORTLESS registry includes 199 patients with channelopathies (Brugada syndrome 83, long QT syndrome 24, idiopathic ventricular fibrillation 78, others 14) and 786 patients with structural heart disease.

Results

Channelopathy patients were younger (39 ± 14 years vs 51 ± 17 years; P < .001) with left ventricular ejection fraction 59% ± 9% vs 41% ± 18% (P < .001). The complication rate (follow-up: 3.2 ± 1.5 years vs 3.0 ± 1.5 years) was similar: 13.6% vs 11.2% (P = .42). Appropriate shocks rates were 9.5% vs 10.8% (P = .70), with shocks for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia being 2.0% vs 6.9% (P < .02) and for polymorphic ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) 8.0% vs 5.7% (P = .30). Conversion effectiveness of VT/VF episodes was similar: 36 of 37 (97.3%) vs 151 of 155 (97.4%, P = .59). VT/VF storm event (2% vs 0.9%, P = .33) and lower inappropriate shock (IAS) (8.5% vs 12.5%, P = .12) rates were statistically similar between channelopathy and non-channelopathy patients, with 45.5% channelopathy vs 31.4% non-channelopathy patients managed with a conditional zone > 200 beats per minute (P = .0002). Annualized appropriate shock, IAS, and complication rates appear to be lower for the S-ICD vs meta-analysis TV-ICD patients, particularly lead complications.

Conclusion

EFFORTLESS demonstrates similar S-ICD efficacy and a nonsignificant, lower rate of IAS in channelopathy patients as compared to structural heart disease. Comparable IAS rates were achieved with the device programmed to higher rates for channelopathy patients.

Predicting inappropriate S-ICD® episodes by simple 12-lead surface ECG parameters

AIMS

The present study aims at analyzing the role of a preimplantation 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) on the prediction of inappropriate S-ICD® episodes.

METHODS

N=116 screened patients (pts) with an S-ICD® and a follow-up of at least 6 months were included. A preimplantation 12-lead ECG (50 mm/s, 10 mm/mV) was analyzed with regard to QRS and T-wave amplitude, T wave concordance or discordance and QRS/T wave ratio in all 12 leads. To ensure an exact determination of parameters Datinf® Measure software was used. Results were correlated to the occurrence of oversensing of cardiac signals during follow-up.

RESULTS

N = 116 pts. (63,8% male, mean age 40,9 ± 15,5 years) were included (primary prevention in 47.4% of pts). The most frequent cardiac diseases were hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) in n = 25 (21,6%), electrical heart disease in n = 20 (17,2%), and dilated cardiomyopathy in n = 17 (14,7%). Mean follow-up was 740 ± 549 days. During follow- up n = 17 (14.7%) pts. experienced n = 27 inappropriate episodes due to T-wave oversensing. Besides HCM (OR 6.16, CI 1.79-21.15, p = 0.004) a discordance of QRS to T-wave in lead I (OR 6.5, CI 1.86-22.67, p = 0.003) was found to be a strong predictor for inappropriate shocks. In multivariate analysis the pts. with a combination of both had an 8.4-fold higher risk of misclassification of intracardiac signals (p = 0.003) with consecutive inappropriate therapy.

CONCLUSION

A discordance of QRS to T-wave in lead I turned out to be a strong predictor for future inappropriate shocks in a typical S-ICD® cohort with special impact on HCM pts.

[Cardiac arrhythmias in pregnancy : Epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and treatment options]

Symptomatic arrhythmias rarely occur during pregnancy and are predominantly benign. However, the increasing average age of women who are pregnant, especially in Western European countries, has contributed to a significant increase in arrhythmias in pregnant women in recent years. Previous or existing heart diseases can increase the occurrence of arrhythmias. In most cases pregnancy is safe and without consequences for the child and/or mother. Further cardiological work-up (including ECG and echocardiography, and possibly cardiac MRI) should always be performed. The indication for treatment should be made in close cooperation between obstetricians and cardiologists considering symptoms, hemodynamics and prognosis. In the absence of larger studies on efficacy and side effects of antiarrhythmic drugs, these should be administered very cautiously, under strict indication and whenever possible by avoiding the first trimester. Cardiologists with special expertise in arrhythmias should always be consulted, especially in the case of complex and relevant rhythm disturbances.

Rhythmusstörungen in der Schwangerschaft

Symptomatische Rhythmusstörungen treten während einer Schwangerschaft selten auf und sind überwiegend gutartig. Sie stellen dennoch eine besondere klinische Herausforderung dar, wobei sich diagnostische und therapeutische Möglichkeiten in Zusammenhang mit gleichzeitig älterem Durchschnittsalter bei Schwangerschaften in den vergangenen Jahren deutlich verbessert haben. In der Regel ist eine Schwangerschaft trotz Auftreten von Rhythmusstörungen sicher und ohne Folgen für das Kind. Vorbekannte oder vorhandene Herzerkrankungen können das Auftreten von Rhythmusstörungen begünstigen. Es sollte immer eine weiterführende kardiologische Diagnostik (u. a. EKG und Echokardiografie) erfolgen. Die Indikation zur Therapie sollte in enger Absprache zwischen Geburtsmediziner und Kardiologen/Rhythmologen erfolgen und dabei Symptomatik, Hämodynamik und Prognose berücksichtigen. Bei fehlenden größeren Studien zu Wirksamkeit und Nebenwirkungen von Antiarrhythmika sollten diese nur sehr zurückhaltend, unter strenger Indikation und am ehesten unter Umgehung des 1. Trimenons verabreicht werden. Insbesondere bei komplexen und prognostisch relevanten Rhythmusstörungen sollten immer Kardiologen mit besonderer rhythmologischer Erfahrung hinzugezogen werden.

The subcutaneous ICD for prevention of sudden cardiac death: Current evidence and future directions

Despite major advances in medical therapy, sudden cardiac death remains an important cause of cardiovascular mortality. In order to improve the risk-benefit balance of transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) systems, a totally subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) system was developed and approved for use in Europe in 2009. The currently available S-ICD system has undergone several important hardware- and software-related modifications and improvements over the last 10 years aimed at further improving its efficacy and safety. The results of the PRAETORIAN trial, that is, the first randomized comparison of S-ICD versus transvenous ICDs, of the prospective UNTOUCHED study, and the overall consistent observational data underline that current generation S-ICD systems may be a valid alternative in patients with an ICD indication in whom bradycardia pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy is not required due to a lower risk of system-related problems. This review summarizes the key differences between the two systems, improvements in hardware components and algorithms over time, as well as most recent clinical evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of the S-ICD.

Clinical experience regarding safety and diagnostic value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with a subcutaneous implanted cardioverter/defibrillator (S-ICD) at 1.5 T

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) studies in patients with implanted cardioverter/defibrillators (ICD) are increasingly required in daily clinical practice. However, the clinical experience regarding the feasibility as well as clinical value of CMR studies in patients with subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is still limited. Besides safety issues, image quality and analysis can be impaired primarily due the presence of image artefacts associated with the generator.

METHODS

Twenty-three patients with an implanted S-ICD (EMBLEM, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts, USA; MR-conditional) with suspected cardiomyopathy and/or myocarditis underwent multi-parametric CMR imaging. Studies were performed on a 1.5 T CMR scanner after device interrogation and comprised standard a) balanced steady state free precession cine, b) T2 weighted-edema, c) velocity-encoded cine flow, d) myocardial perfusion, e) late-gadolinium-enhancement (LGE)-imaging and f) 3D-CMR angiography of the aorta. In case of substantial artefacts, alternative CMR techniques such as spoiled gradient-echo cine-sequences and wide-band inversion-recovery LGE (wb-LGE) sequences were applied.

RESULTS

Successful CMR studies could be performed in all patients without any case of unexpected early termination or relevant technical complication other than permanent loss of the S-ICD system beeper volume in 52% of our patients. Assessment of cine-CMR images was predominantly impaired in the left ventricular (LV) anterior, lateral and inferior wall segments and a switch to spoiled gradient echo-based cine-CMR allowed an accurate assessment of cine-images in N = 17 (74%) patients with only limited artefacts. Hyperintensity artefacts in conventional LGE-images were predominantly observed in the LV anterior, lateral and inferior wall segments and image optimisation by use of the wb-LGE was helpful in 15 (65%) cases. Aortic flow measurements and 3D-CMR angiography were assessable in all patients Perfusion imaging artefacts precluded a meaningful assessment in at least one half of the patients. A benefit in clinical-decision making was documented in 17 (74%) patients in the present study.

CONCLUSION

Safe 1.5 T CMR imaging was possible in all patients with an S-ICD, though the majority had permanent loss of the S-ICD beeper volume. Achieving good image quality may be challenging in some patients - particularly for perfusion imaging. Using spoiled gradient echo-based cine-sequences and wb-LGE sequences may help to reduce the extent of artefacts, thereby allowing accurate cardiac assessment. Thus, 1.5 T CMR studies should not be withhold in patients with S-ICD for safety concerns and/or fear of extensive imaging artefacts precluding successful image analysis.

[Brugada syndrome : Risk stratification and prevention of sudden cardiac death]

Brugada syndrome is ion channelopathy defined by coved type ST-elevation in at least one right precordial ECG lead. Patients may suffer from ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation, which may cause syncope or sudden cardiac death. The majority of patients are likely to remain asymptomatic throughout life. A correct ECG diagnosis remains challenging. The implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) is the only established therapy to protect against sudden cardiac death. Thus, individual risk stratification is of major clinical relevance in primary prevention. The present article gives an update on current risk stratification and novel therapeutic options apart from ICD therapy.

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.