Exercise stress test reveals ineligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator in patients with Brugada syndrome

Fifteen years of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: Where do we stand, and what will the future hold?

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has emerged as a feasible alternative to the transvenous ICD in the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients without indications for pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy. Since its introduction, numerous innovations have been made and clinical experience has been gained, leading to its adoption in current practice and preference in certain populations. Moreover, emerging technologies like the extravascular ICD and the combination of the S-ICD with the leadless pacemaker offer new possibilities for the future. These advancements underscore the evolving role of the S-ICD in management of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. This review outlines implantation considerations, patient selection, and troubleshooting advancements in the last 15 years and provides insights into future perspectives.

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.

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.

Sixty years of the Bruce protocol: reappraising the contemporary role of exercise stress testing with electrocardiographic monitoring

The cardiovascular response to exercise has long been a focus of interest. Over a century ago, the first descriptions of electrocardiographic changes occurring during exercise highlighted the possible relevance of this dynamic assessment. In this background, the inception of the Bruce protocol circa 60 years ago allowed for a major leap in this field by providing a standardized framework with which to address this issue, by means of an integrated and structured methodology. Since then, exercise stress testing with electrocardiographic monitoring (ExECG) has become one of the most widely appraised tests in cardiovascular medicine. Notably, past few decades have been profoundly marked by substantial advances in the approach to cardiovascular disease, challenging prior notions concerning both its physiopathology and overall management. Among these, the ever-evolving presentations of cardiovascular disease coupled with the development and implementation of several novel diagnostic modalities (both invasive and noninvasive) has led to a shifting paradigm in the application of ExECG. This technique, however, has continuously shown to be of added value across various momentums of the cardiovascular continuum, as depicted in several contemporary guidelines. This review provides a pragmatical reflexion on the development of ExECG, presenting a comprehensive overview concerning the current role of this modality, its challenges, and its future perspectives.

Implantable Devices in Genetic Heart Disease: Disease-Specific Device Selection and Programming

Diagnosis and risk stratification of rare genetic heart diseases remains clinically challenging. In many cases, there are few data and insufficient numbers to support randomized controlled trials. While implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) use is vital to protect higher-risk individuals from life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, low-risk individuals also require protection from unnecessary ICDs and their associated complications. Once an ICD has been implanted, appropriate device programming is essential to ensure maximal protection while balancing the risks of inappropriate therapy.

Lights and shadows of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in Brugada syndrome

Currently the cornerstone of therapy for ventricular arrhythmic complications and sudden cardiac death prevention in Brugada syndrome (BrS) is an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). BrS patient population differs from the majority of patients with an ICD implanted for structural heart disease, and as widely known, transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) systems have been associated with high complication rates in patients with BrS. Technological evolution of these devices has certainly reduced complications due to the device itself, but a careful preimplant screening of these patients is still essential. To date, criteria for an adequate screening process to select suitable candidates for a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) from patients with BrS are sometimes nonstandardized and often lack important precautions that are instead fundamental to select the most suitable type of ICD for these patients. To better select suitable candidates for an S-ICD from patients with BrS, a full screening process should include screening during or immediately after an exercise test and after a drug provocation challenge test. We report an analysis of the "lights and shadows" of S-ICD for a correct use of this device in patients with BrS.

Brugada Syndrome

Brugada syndrome (BrS) is an "inherited" condition characterized by predisposition to syncope and cardiac arrest, predominantly during sleep. The prevalence is ∼1:2,000, and is more commonly diagnosed in young to middle-aged males, although patient sex does not appear to impact prognosis. Despite the perception of BrS being an inherited arrhythmia syndrome, most cases are not associated with a single causative gene variant. Electrocardiogram (ECG) findings support variable extent of depolarization and repolarization changes, with coved ST-segment elevation ≥2 mm and a negative T-wave in the right precordial leads. These ECG changes are often intermittent, and may be provoked by fever or sodium channel blocker challenge. Growing evidence from cardiac imaging, epicardial ablation, and pathology studies suggests the presence of an epicardial arrhythmic substrate within the right ventricular outflow tract. Risk stratification aims to identify those who are at increased risk of sudden cardiac death, with well-established factors being the presence of spontaneous ECG changes and a history of cardiac arrest or cardiogenic syncope. Current management involves conservative measures in asymptomatic patients, including fever management and drug avoidance. Symptomatic patients typically undergo implantable cardioverter defibrillator insertion, with quinidine and epicardial ablation used for patients with recurrent arrhythmia. This review summarizes our current understanding of BrS and provides clinicians with a practical approach to diagnosis and management.

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.

Use of an exercise test to enhance sensing vector assessment and prevent inadequate subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator discharges

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are a modern alternative to classic cardioverter-defibrillators. Prior to implantation of the device, qualification based on assessment of the heart's specific rhythm shape during a resting electrocardiogram examination must be performed. In the presented case, a patient with a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator experienced numerous discharges during exercise. An exercise test was performed, which revealed a bundle branch block that appeared during exercise. The wide QRS complex was double- or triple-counted by the device, resulting in an inaccurate heart rate estimation and multiple discharges. Optimising the sensing vectors during exercise solved this problem.

Lead-associated Superior Vena Cava Syndrome

Superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome is a rare complication associated with transvenous cardiac implantable electronic devices that may present with a variety of manifestations. Various strategies such as transvenous lead extraction, anticoagulation, venoplasty, and stenting have been used to treat this condition, but the optimal management protocols have yet to be defined. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (S-ICD) therapy can be an alternative option to a transvenous system for those who require future ICD surveillance. We present a case of lead-associated SVC syndrome where thoracic venous congestion due to SVC obstruction influenced preimplant S-ICD QRS vector screening. Following treatment of venous obstruction, QRS amplitude may change and patients who were not initially S-ICD candidates may later become eligible.

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.

State-of-the-art consensus on non-transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy

Within the last decade, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) systems with non-transvenous leads were developed in order to minimize complications related to the cardiovascular position of transvenous ICD leads. This national expert consensus gives an overview of potential indications for the implantation of non-transvenous ICD systems, and provides specific recommendations for implantation, follow-up, and complication management in patients with subcutaneous ICD. Regarding particular issues like the necessity for shock efficacy testing, or the clinical outcome as compared to transvenous ICD, randomized data are expected in the near future.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator indication in prevention of sudden cardiac death in difficult clinical situations: A French expert position paper

The introduction of a new technology always raises questions about its place compared with the reference technology. The use of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator to prevent sudden cardiac death is now a widely proven technique, with a clear statement of its indication in the guidelines. More recently, a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator has been introduced, and appears to be an attractive technique as it removes the need to implant a lead inside the right ventricle to treat the patient, which should dramatically decrease the risk of complications over time. Currently, only one model of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator is available on the market; its indications are the same as for transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators, except for patients who need stimulation because of conduction disorders or ventricular tachycardias that can potentially be treated effectively by antitachycardia pacing. The different technical characteristics of transvenous versus subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators therefore raise the question of which to choose in different clinical settings. The experts who participated in the preparation of this manuscript had three meetings, organized by the company Boston Scientific. Each expert prepared the draft of a section corresponding to a clinical situation. The choice between transvenous versus subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator was then voted on by all the experts. The results of the votes are presented in this manuscript, as it seemed important to us to show the disparities of opinion that can exist in certain situations. The votes were cast independently and anonymously.

Patient characteristics and in-hospital complications of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for Brugada syndrome in Japan

BACKGROUND

Clinical features and complications of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation for Brugada syndrome have not been well studied.

METHODS

We used the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database to retrospectively investigate patients who had undergone ICD implantation between April 2016 and March 2017. We compared the characteristics and in-hospital complications of patients with Brugada syndrome implanted with S-ICD or transvenous (TV)-ICD.

RESULTS

We extracted 3090 patients who received ICD implantation. Among them, we identified 278 Brugada patients. The mean age was 43 ± 14.4 years and 262 (94%) were male. Of these 278 patients, 136 (49%) received S-ICD and 142 (51%) received TV-ICD. TV-ICD recipients had a history of atrial fibrillation more frequently compared with S-ICD recipients. The median (interquartile range) of length of hospital stay was not significantly different between patients with S-ICD and TV-ICD (13 days [10-20.5] vs 12 days [10-18], respectively). The prevalence of in-hospital complications after ICD implantation was similar between the two groups. There were no patients with cardiac tamponade, hemothorax, pneumothorax, cardiovascular event, stroke, and death following the procedure during hospitalization in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term safety of S-ICD implantation may be identical to that of TV-ICD. Large prospective studies are warranted to compare the effects and long-term safety of S-ICD compared with TV-ICD.

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.

SMART pass will prevent inappropriate operation of S-ICD

BACKGROUND

Compared to screening ECG before implantation of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD), selectable vectors without T-wave oversensing increase after S-ICD implantation. Newer algorithms have recently become available to reduce T-wave oversensing, such as SMART pass (SP). With this function, more selectable vectors are identified after S-ICD implantation. However, this improvement in eligibility utilizing SP has not yet been well validated. We aimed to clarify S-ICD eligibility before and after S-ICD implantation with and without SP.

METHODS

Participants comprised 34 patients implanted with an S-ICD at Okayama University Hospital and its affiliated hospitals between February 2016 and August 2017. A total of 102 S-ICD vectors were assessed for eligibility before and after S-ICD implantation, at rest and during exercise testing. Vector availability was evaluated in the presence and absence of SP after S-ICD implantation.

RESULTS

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator eligibility was significantly better after implantation even without SP than S-ICD screening before S-ICD implantation, both at rest (before 65.7% vs after 95.1%, P < 0.01) and during exercise (before 59.3% vs after 90.6%, P < 0.01). SP improved S-ICD eligibility during exercise (SP on 97.9% vs off 90.6%, P = 0.03). Multivariate analysis showed the prevalence of S-ICD eligibility increased significantly after S-ICD implantation compared to screening before implantation. SP further increased selectable vectors in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Available vectors increased significantly after S-ICD implantation compared to preoperative vectors as assessed by S-ICD screening ECG. T-wave oversensing during exercise has been an unresolved issue for S-ICD, but SP will help prevent inappropriate operation with S-ICD.

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.

Evaluation of a novel automatic screening tool for determining eligibility for a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

BACKGROUND

The manufacturer has developed a new ECG screening tool to determine eligibility for the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), the "automatic screening tool" (AST), which may render manual ECG-screening unnecessary. The aim of the study was to determine the eligibility for the S-ICD using two methods (manual ECG-screening versus AST) in different patient categories including patients with cardiomyopathy, congenital heart disease and inherited primary arrhythmia syndrome.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the ECG suitability for an S-ICD in consecutive patients at our outpatient clinic between February and June 2017. The primary endpoint of the study was ECG eligibility defined as at least 1 successful vector in both supine and sitting postures.

RESULTS

A total of 254 patients (167 men; mean age 45 ± 16 years) were screened using both methods. Overall, there was a high ECG eligibility using either method (93% versus 92%, P = 0.45). Overall agreement between both methods was 94%. Patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) more often had a failed screening test using either test in comparison to the patients without HCM (manual: odds ratio [OR] 3.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-9.3, P = 0.02; AST: OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.2-7.6, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

AST showed a high agreement with manual ECG-screening for S-ICD. Overall there was a high ECG eligibility for S-ICD, although patients with HCM had a lower passing rate irrespective of the screening method.

Change of sensing vector in the subcutaneous ICD during follow-up and after device replacement

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) has been established as a valuable alternative to transvenous ICD for prevention of sudden cardiac death. The system automatically chooses the optimal sensing vector. However, during follow-up and especially after device replacement we observed a change of the suggested sensing vector in automatic setup. Therefore, we analyzed frequency and reasons of vector change and its impact on inappropriate shocks (IAS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between June 2010 and December 2017, a total of 216 patients with S-ICD^® were included in this analysis. In all patients sensing vectors at the time of implantation, during follow-up, and after device replacement were investigated. Median follow-up time was 27.3 ± 25.3 months.

RESULTS

A change of the initial vector was seen in 77 patients (35.7%). The most frequent reason for vector change was the postoperative setup in supine and erect position in 54 patients (70.1%). In 12 patients (15.5%), the vector was manually changed due to inappropriate sensing and/or therapies. Routine setup during follow-up led to automatic vector change in 10 cases (13.0%). In only 1 patient the vector was manually changed due to oversensing in an exercise treadmill test. In 27 patients, the device was replaced due to battery depletion and in 6 of these patients the sensing vector was changed by the automatic setup. Vector change did not have an impact for inappropriate therapies in the follow-up; only 1 patient received an IAS due to an inadvertent vector change after device replacement.

CONCLUSION

In the present study, a significant number of S-ICD^® patients had a manual or automatic vector change during follow-up and after device replacement. The study underlines the importance of a thoroughly performed screening and at least two valuable sensing vectors preimplant. Further studies are needed to evaluate the necessity of a routine automatic setup during follow-up.