Eligibility of Pacemaker Patients for Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

Comparison of Preoperative ECG Screening and Device-Based Vector Analysis in Patients Receiving a Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator

Background and Objectives: Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) provide protection against sudden cardiac death from outside the cardiovascular system. ECG screening is a prerequisite for implantation, but the reproducibility of its results post-operatively in the device is only partial. We aimed to compare the results of ECG screening with device-based sensing vector analysis. Materials and Methods: We screened the hospital records of all S-ICD recipients in our clinic. All of them had pre-operative ECG screening performed (primary, secondary, and alternate vectors). The results were compared with device-based vector analysis to determine the relation of the pre- and post-operative vector availability. Results: Complete ECG screening and device-based vector analysis were obtained for 103 patients. At least two acceptable vectors were found in 97.1% of the patients pre-operatively and in 96.1% post-operatively. When comparing vectors in terms of agreement (OK or FAIL) pre- and post-operatively, in 89.3% of the patients, the result for the primary vector was the same in both situations; for the secondary, it was in 84.5%, and for the alternate, it was in 74.8% of patients, respectively. In 55.3% of patients, all three vectors were labeled the same (OK or FAIL); in 37.9%, two vectors had the same result, and in 6.8%, only one vector had the same result pre- and post-operatively. The number of available vectors was the same pre- and post-operatively in 62.1% of patients, while in 15.5%, it was lower, and in 22.3% of patients, it was higher than observed during screening. Conclusions: Routine clinical pre-operative screening allowed for a good selection of candidates for S-ICD implantation. All patients had at least one vector available post-operatively. The final number of vectors available in the device-based analysis in most patients was at least the same (or higher) than during screening. The repeatability of the positive result for a single vector was high.

Combined subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator and pacemaker devices in complex congenital heart disease: a single-center experienced based study

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICD) are widely accepted therapy in congenital heart disease (CHD) patients at risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias or sudden cardiac death (SCD) when pacing is not required. Occasionally, pacemaker (PM)-dependent CHD patients will subsequently develop an indication for a cardioverter defibrillator. The use of S-ICD in complex CHD patients who have had already PM devices implanted implies some specific considerations, as the safety for these patients in unknown and recommendations among physicians may vary widely.

METHODS

We review the data and studied the indications for S-ICD in complex CHD with previous PM and discuss its usefulness in clinical practice.

RESULTS

From a large cohort of 345 patients enrolled in the S-ICD Monaldi care registry, which encompass all the patients implanted in the Monaldi Hospital of Naples, we considered 11 consecutive complex CHD patients (10M/1F aged 40.4 ±18.4 years) who underwent S-ICD implant after a previous PM implant, from February 2015 to October 2022. Mean follow-up was 25.5 ± 22 months. All the patients showed a good compliance to the device system with no complications (infections or skin erosions).

CONCLUSIONS

In complex CHD with already implanted PM devices, S-ICD implant appears to be a safe alternative to PM upgrading to transvenous ICD system, avoiding abandoned leads or life-threatening lead extraction. However, there are important issues with regard to testing and programming that need to be addressed at the time of implantation.

Eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in adults with congenital heart disease

AIMS

Patients with adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) carry an increased risk for sudden cardiac death. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy may be challenging in these patients due to anatomical barriers, repeated cardiac surgery, or complicated transvenous access. Thus, the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) can be a promising alternative in this patient population. Patients with ACHD show significant electrocardiogram (ECG) abnormalities, which could affect S-ICD sensing because it depends on surface ECG.

METHODS AND RESULTS

One hundred patients with ACHD were screened for S-ICD eligibility. Standard ECG-based screening test and automated S-ICD screening test were performed in all patients. Sixty-six patients (66%) were male. Underlying congenital heart disease (CHD) was mainly CHD of great complexity (71%) and moderate complexity (29%), including repaired tetralogy of Fallot (20%), which was the most common entity. Thirty-seven patients (37%) already had a pacemaker (23%) or ICD (14%) implanted. Automated screening test identified 83 patients (83%) eligible for S-ICD implantation in either left parasternal position (78%) or right parasternal position (75%). Absence of sinus rhythm, QRS duration, and a paced QRS complex were associated with S-ICD screening failure in univariate analysis. Receiver operating characteristic curve and multivariate analysis revealed a QRS duration ≥148 ms as the only independent predictor for S-ICD screening failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with ACHD show satisfactory eligibility rates (83%) for S-ICD implantation utilizing the automated screening test, including patients with CHD of high complexity. S-ICD therapy should be considered with caution in ACHD patients with a QRS duration ≥148 ms and/or need for ventricular pacing.

Association Between Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Preimplantation Screening and the Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Background and Objectives

Preimplantation QRS-T morphology screening (TMS) is a composite tool for selecting subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) candidates. However, its role in predicting the patient's response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is uncertain.

Methods

A total of 55 consecutive de novo CRT candidates were enrolled between January 2016 and March 2017. Electrocardiogram (ECG) and TMS were performed before and soon after implantation. The ECG parameters were recorded, including QRS duration and morphology (such as ΔQRS_Index, QTc during biventricular pacing mode [BiV pacing QTc], and QRS/T ratio during biventricular pacing mode [BiV pacing QRS/T ratio]). TMS monitored three sensory vectors of the S-ICD. Six months after implantation, the responses to CRT were evaluated.

Results

Thirty-nine patients (70.9%) passed the TMS during biventricular pacing mode. At the six-month follow-up, the number of responders and super-responders was significantly higher in the passing group than in the non-passing group (responders: 31/39 [79.5%] vs. 5/16 [31.3%], p<0.001; super-responders: 9/39 [23.1%] vs. 1/16 [6.3%], p=0.020). The super-response rate was higher among patients who passed all three vectors than among those who passed 1 or 2 vectors (3 vs. 2 vectors, p=0.018; 3 vs. 1 vector, p=0.003). A smaller left atrial diameter, vectors that passed TMS during biventricular pacing mode, and larger ΔQRS_Index values were independently associated with good CRT response.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated that patients on CRT who pass the TMS during biventricular pacing mode are more likely to respond and super-respond to CRT.

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: Current trends in clinical practice between guidelines and technology progress

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) is a valuable alternative to the conventional trans-venous ICD (TV-ICD) for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Prospective registries showed that the S-ICD is safe and effective in treating ventricular tachyarrhythmias in high-risk patients without pacing indications. While in earlier studies patients implanted with S-ICDs were young and mostly affected by channelopathies, contemporary S-ICD cohorts include patients with severely impaired left ventricular function and significant comorbidities. This review focuses on S-ICD evidence-based use and highlights current gaps between guidelines recommendations and real-world clinical practice.

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.

Candidacy for a Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Patients with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

In patients requiring an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), the combined use of a prior pacemaker and a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) could be an alternative treatment option to implantation of new leads or upgrading of pacemakers to an ICD if vascular access is limited. Here, we assessed the prevalence of S-ICD's eligibility according to surface electrogram screening in those receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). S-ICD's eligibility was assessed in patients with a CRT pacemaker or a CRT defibrillator using the S-ICD template screening tool. Eligibility was defined as fulfillment of the template in both supine and upright positions in one or more leads during biventricular pacing. Among 44 patients (34 men, age: 67 ± 12), 36 (82%) were found to be eligible. The T/QRS amplitude ratio in lead II was significantly lower in those who were eligible (0.31 ± 0.16 versus 0.44 ± 0.18 in the ineligible group, P = 0.04). The lead position, underlying disease, and other electrocardiographic findings were not different between those who were eligible and those who were not. The majority of patients with biventricular pacing were eligible for S-ICD based on current screening tests and may benefit from this treatment. Further study is required.

Eligibility of cardiac resynchronization therapy patients for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Before subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation, the adequacy of sensing is required to be verified through surface ECG screening. Our objective was to determine whether S-ICD can be considered as a supplementary therapy in patients who are receiving biventricular (BIV) pacing.

METHODS

We evaluated 48 patients with BIV devices to determine S-ICD candidacy during BIV, left ventricular (LV), right ventricular (RV) pacing, and intrinsic conduction (left bundle branch block-LBBB) by using an automated screening tool. Eligibility was defined by the presence of at least one appropriate vector in the supine and standing positions.

RESULTS

Eligibility was verified during BIV pacing in 34 (71%) patients. In patients screened-out, QRS duration was longer (p = 0.035) and ischemic cardiomyopathy was more frequent (p = 0.027). LV-only pacing was associated with a lower passing rate (46%) (p < 0.001 versus BIV). The LBBB QRS morphology during inhibited ventricular pacing was acceptable in 51% of patients. The QRS generated by RV pacing was acceptable in 25% of patients. In patients who passed the screening test during BIV, the QRS was not acceptable in 76% during RV pacing (i.e., accidental loss of LV capture). The concomitant adequacy during inhibited ventricular pacing (i.e., possible intrinsic conduction) was not assessed in 40% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

S-ICD may be a supplemental therapy in the majority of CRT patients. Standard BIV pacing should be preferred to the LV-only pacing mode, as it is more frequently associated with adequacy of S-ICD sensing. Spontaneous LBBB and RV-paced QRS morphologies are frequently inadequate. Therefore, in patients selected for concomitant S-ICD and CRT implantation, accidental loss of LV capture or possible intrinsic conduction must be prevented.

Eligibility of cardiac resynchronization therapy patients for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators

The eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICD) was assessed among patients already implanted with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We included 20 patients (15 men, age 73±10years, LVEF 35±10%). Seventeen (85%) patients were eligible for S-ICDs: 11 (55%) patients on only 1 vector and 6 (30%) patients on 2 or 3 vectors. Patients who were eligible on 2-3 vectors had narrower paced QRS than patients who were not eligible or were eligible on only one vector (133±18ms vs 167±17ms, p=0.007). If necessary, S-ICD implantation could be considered in most patients with CRT.