Clinical impact of defibrillation testing in a real‐world S‐ICD population: Data from the ELISIR registry

Sex differences among subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients: a propensity-matched, multicentre, international analysis from the i-SUSI project

AIMS

Women have been historically underrepresented in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) trials. No data on sex differences regarding subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICD) carriers have been described. Aim of our study was to investigate sex-related differences among unselected S-ICD recipients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients enrolled in the multicentre, international i-SUSI registry were analysed. Comparisons between sexes were performed using a 1:1 propensity matching adjusted analysis for age, body mass index (BMI), left ventricular function, and substrate. The primary outcome was the rate of appropriate shocks during follow-up. Inappropriate shocks and other device-related complications were deemed secondary outcomes. A total of 1698 patients were extracted from the i-SUSI registry; 399 (23.5%) were females. After propensity matching, two cohorts of 374 patients presenting similar baseline characteristics were analysed. Despite similar periprocedural characteristics and a matched BMI, women resulted at lower risk of conversion failure as per PRAETORIAN score (73.4% vs. 81.3%, P = 0.049). Over a median follow-up time of 26.5 [12.7-42.5] months, appropriate shocks were more common in the male cohort (rate/year 3.4% vs. 1.7%; log-rank P = 0.049), while no significant differences in device-related complications (rate/year: 6.3% vs. 5.8%; log-rank P = 0.595) and inappropriate shocks (rate/year: 4.3% vs. 3.1%; log-rank P = 0.375) were observed. After controlling for confounders, sex remained significantly associated with the primary outcome (aHR 1.648; CI 0.999-2.655, P = 0.048), while not resulting predictor of inappropriate shocks and device-related complications.

CONCLUSION

In a propensity-matched cohort of S-ICD recipients, women are less likely to experience appropriate ICD therapy, while not showing higher risk of device-related complications.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0473876.

Differences in underlying cardiac substrate among S-ICD recipients and its impact on long-term device-related outcomes: Real-world insights from the iSUSI registry

BACKGROUND

Outcome comparisons among subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) recipients with nonischemic cardiomyopathies are scarce.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate differences in device-related outcomes among S-ICD recipients with different structural substrates.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the i-SUSI (International SUbcutaneouS Implantable cardioverter defibrillator registry) project were grouped according to the underlying substrate (ischemic vs nonischemic) and subgrouped into dilated cardiomyopathy, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, Brugada syndrome (BrS), arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC). The main outcome of our study was to compare the rates of appropriate and inappropriate shocks and device-related complications.

RESULTS

Among 1698 patients, the most common underlying substrate was ischemic (31.7%), followed by dilated cardiomyopathy (20.5%), BrS (10.8%), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (8.5%), and ARVC (4.4%). S-ICD for primary prevention was more common in the nonischemic cohort (70.9% vs 65.4%; P = .037). Over a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 26.5 (12.6-42.8) months, no differences were observed in appropriate shocks between ischemic and nonischemic patients (4.8%/y vs 3.9%/y; log-rank, P = .282). ARVC (9.0%/y; hazard ratio [HR] 2.492; P = .001) and BrS (1.8%/y; HR 0.396; P = .008) constituted the groups with the highest and lowest rates of appropriate shocks, respectively. Device-related complications did not differ between groups (ischemic: 6.4%/y vs nonischemic: 6.1%/y; log-rank, P = .666), nor among underlying substrates (log-rank, P = .089). Nonischemic patients experienced higher rates of inappropriate shocks than did ischemic S-ICD recipients (4.4%/y vs 3.0%/y; log-rank, P = .043), with patients with ARVC (9.9%/y; P = .001) having the highest risk, even after controlling for confounders (adjusted HR 2.243; confidence interval 1.338-4.267; P = .002).

CONCLUSION

Most S-ICD recipients were primary prevention nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients. Among those, patients with ARVC tend to receive the most frequent appropriate and inappropriate shocks and patients with BrS the least frequent appropriate shocks.

Impact of ventricular tachycardia ablation in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator carriers: a multicentre, international analysis from the iSUSI project

AIMS

Catheter ablation (CA) of ventricular tachycardia (VT) has become an important tool to improve clinical outcomes in patients with appropriate transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks. The aim of our analysis was to test whether VT ablation (VTA) impacts long-term clinical outcomes even in subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) carriers.

METHODS AND RESULTS

International Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (iSUSI) registry patients who experienced either an ICD shock or a hospitalization for monomorphic VT were included in this analysis. Based on an eventual VTA after the index event, patients were divided into VTA+ vs. VTA- cohorts. Primary outcome of the study was the occurrence of a combination of device-related appropriate shocks, monomorphic VTs, and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were addressed individually. Among n = 1661 iSUSI patients, n = 211 were included: n = 177 experiencing ICD shocks and n = 34 hospitalized for VT. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed. Both the crude and the yearly event rate of the primary outcome (5/59 and 3.8% yearly event rate VTA+ vs. 41/152 and 16.4% yearly event rate in the VTA-; log-rank: P value = 0.0013) and the cardiovascular mortality (1/59 and 0.7% yearly event rate VTA+ vs. 13/152 and 4.7% yearly event rate VTA-; log-rank P = 0.043) were significantly lower in the VTA + cohort. At multivariate analysis, VTA was the only variable remaining associated with a lower incidence of the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio 0.262 (0.100-0.681), P = 0.006].

CONCLUSION

In a real-world registry of S-ICD carriers, the combined study endpoint of arrhythmic events and cardiovascular mortality was lower in the patient cohort undergoing VTA at long-term follow-up.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT0473876.

Indications and management of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in childhood hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Sudden cardiac death is the most common mode of death during childhood and adolescence in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and identifying those individuals at highest risk is a major aspect of clinical care. The mainstay of preventative therapy is the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, which has been shown to be effective at terminating malignant ventricular arrhythmias in children with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy but can be associated with substantial morbidity. Accurate identification of those children at highest risk who would benefit most from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation while minimising the risk of complications is, therefore, essential. This position statement, on behalf of the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC), reviews the currently available data on established and proposed risk factors for sudden cardiac death in childhood-onset hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and current approaches for risk stratification in this population. It also provides guidance on identification of individuals at risk of sudden cardiac death and optimal management of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in children and adolescents with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

The need for a subsequent transvenous system in patients implanted with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

BACKGROUND

The absence of pacing capabilities may reduce the appeal of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) devices for patients at risk for conduction disorders or with antitachycardia pacing (ATP)/cardiac resynchronization (CRT) requirements. Reports of rates of S-ICD to transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) system switch in real-world scenarios are limited.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the need for a subsequent transvenous (TV) device in patients implanted with an S-ICD and its predictors.

METHODS

All patients implanted with an S-ICD were enrolled from the multicenter, real-world iSUSI (International SUbcutaneouS Implantable cardioverter defibrillator) Registry. The need for a TV device and its clinical reason, and appropriate and inappropriate device therapies were assessed. Logistic regression with Firth penalization was used to assess the association between baseline and procedural characteristics and the overall need for a subsequent TV device.

RESULTS

A total of 1509 patients were enrolled (age 50.8 ± 15.8 years; 76.9% male; 32.0% ischemic; left ventricular ejection fraction 38% [30%-60%]). Over 26.5 [13.4-42.9] months, 155 (10.3%) and 144 (9.3%) patients experienced appropriate and inappropriate device therapies, respectively. Forty-one patients (2.7%) required a TV device (13 bradycardia; 10 need for CRT; 10 inappropriate shocks). Body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2 and chronic kidney disease (CKD) were associated with need for a TV device (odds ratio [OR] 2.57 [1.37-4.81], P = .003; and OR 2.67 [1.29-5.54], P = .008, respectively).

CONCLUSION

A low rate (2.7%) of conversion from S-ICD to a TV device was observed at follow-up, with need for antibradycardia pacing, ATP, or CRT being the main reasons. BMI >30 kg/m2 and CKD predicted all-cause need for a TV device.

Combined Use of S-ICD and Absorbable Antibacterial Envelopes: A Proof-of-concept Study

BACKGROUND

Absorbable antibacterial envelopes (AAEs) are currently recommended in patients undergoing a transvenous ICD implantation in cases at high risk of infection, who are now preferably implanted with a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD). Nevertheless, experiences using a combined approach with S-ICD and AAE have not been reported. The aim of our study was to evaluate this strategy in patients at very high risk of infection.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients were implanted with the S-ICD+AAE using our combined approach, restricted to patients who would fit our decisional flow algorithm identifying very high-risk patients. Patients were followed up 1 month after discharge and every 6 months thereafter. Complications were defined as device-related events requiring medical or surgical intervention for resolution and/or device reprogramming.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients (92% males, mean age 58.5±14.1 years) were implanted with the S-ICD device and the AAE using our combined approach. The most common high-infective risk factors were diabetes requiring insulin treatment (80%) and CKD requiring hemodialysis (48%), with 7 (28%) patients presenting with more than 2 risk factors. A single mild early post-operative hematoma was observed that was managed conservatively with a spontaneous resolution. Despite a very high-risk cohort, only a single late pocket infection was detected and solved conservatively with antibiotic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The preliminary data of this proof-of-concept study show how a combined deployment of AAE and S-ICD in selected patients at very high risk of infection is a safe and feasible technique and may offer a reliable treatment option in specific and selected clinical settings.

S-ICDs: advantages and opportunities for improvement

INTRODUCTION

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) is currently in its third generation and has been adopted in guidelines and in mainstream clinical practice. Considerable improvements have been made since the introduction of this device over a decade ago.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search was undertaken in Pubmed on articles relating to the S-ICD.

EXPERT OPINION

The therapy has been proven to be safe and effective and is a valuable option in selected patients. Nevertheless, there remain many shortcomings of the S-ICD which are discussed in this review, and which hopefully will be addressed by future generations of the device.

Intraprocedural PRAETORIAN score for early assessment of S-ICD implantation: A proof-of-concept study

INTRODUCTION

The PRAETORIAN score (PS) was developed to assess the implant position and predict defibrillation success of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICD). The main critique moved to the routine use of PS has been its postprocedural timing, that limits its usefulness on procedure guidance. The aim of this proof-of-concept study was to assess the feasibility of an intraprocedural use of PS.

METHODS

Forty consecutive patients undergoing S-ICD implantation were enrolled. Intraprocedural PS (IP-PS) obtained with fluoroscopy before closure of the pocket and postprocedural PS (PP-PS) obtained with two-views chest X-ray were compared. Intraprocedural data and PS were compared with the historic cohorts of the involved institutions.

RESULTS

When assessing IP-PS and PP-PS, a complete overall agreement was observed (100%, 1.00-κ; p < .001). When assessing a per-step agreement, a very high-degree of concordance in evaluating Step 1 of the PS was observed (95%, 0.81-κ; p < .001). A complete agreement in Step 2-3 (100%, 1.00-κ; p < .001) of the PS was reported. In comparison with our historical cohort, procedural time in the IP-PS cohort did not increase (45 [41-52] vs. 45 [39-49] min; p = .351) while the expected increase in fluoroscopy time resulted scarce (15 [10-15] s).

CONCLUSION

An IP-PS can be reliably obtained using fluoroscopy guidance during S-ICD implantation, without a significant increase in procedural duration and may serve as guidance for implanting physicians, to avoid postprocedural S-ICD repositioning, leading to patient discomfort and significantly enhancing infective risks. IP-PS showed a very high agreement with the PP-PS obtained from two-views chest X-ray.

A 10 J shock impedance in sinus rhythm correlates with a 65 J defibrillation impedance during subcutaneous defibrillator implantation using an intermuscular technique

INTRODUCTION

Defibrillation testing (DT) is recommended during the subcutaneous defibrillator (S-ICD) placement. We sought to compare 10 J shock impedance in sinus rhythm (SR) with 65 J defibrillation impedance and evaluate device position on a postimplant chest X-ray (CXR) using an intermuscular (IM) technique.

METHODS

Consecutive S-ICD implantations between 12/2019 and 12/2020 at The Ohio State University were reviewed. All implantations were performed using a two-incision IM technique. Standard DT with 65 J shock and 10 J shock in SR were performed unless contraindicated. The PRAETORIAN score was calculated based on CXR.

RESULTS

A total of 37 patients (age: 47.2 ± 15.8 years old, male: n = 26 [70.3%], body mass index: 30.1 ± 6.7 kg/m² ) underwent IM S-ICD implantation, and of those, 27 (73%) underwent both 65 J shock and 10 J shock in SR. The coefficient of determination (R² ) between 10 J shock impedance and 65 J shock impedance was 0.84. The mean of an impedance difference was 1.6 ± 4.8 Ω (minimum - 11 and maximum 8). Postimplant CXR was available for 33 out of 37 patients (89.2%). The PRAETORIAN score was less than 90 in all patients and the mean score was 32.7 ± 8.8.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that 10 J shock impedance in SR correlated well with 65 J defibrillation impedance during IM S-ICD implantation. An IM implantation technique provides excellent generator location on postimplant CXR. The IM technique combined with 10 J shock in SR may be sufficient to predict and ensure the defibrillation efficacy of the S-ICD.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and defibrillation testing: A propensity-matched pilot study

BACKGROUND

To date, only a few comparisons between subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) patients undergoing and those not undergoing defibrillation testing (DT) at implantation (DT+ vs DT-) have been reported.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare long-term clinical outcomes of 2 propensity-matched cohorts of DT+ and DT- patients.

METHODS

Among consecutive S-ICD patients implanted across 17 centers from January 2015 to October 2020, DT- patients were 1:1 propensity-matched for baseline characteristics with DT+ patients. The primary outcome was a composite of ineffective shocks and cardiovascular mortality. Appropriate and inappropriate shock rates were deemed secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 1290 patients, a total of 566 propensity-matched patients (283 DT+; 283 DT-) served as study population. Over median follow-up of 25.3 months, no significant differences in primary outcome event rates were found (10 DT+ vs 14 DT-; P = .404) as well as for ineffective shocks (5 DT- vs 3 DT+; P = .725). At multivariable Cox regression analysis, DT performance was associated with a reduction of neither the primary combined outcome nor ineffective shocks at follow-up. A high PRAETORIAN score was positively associated with both the primary outcome (hazard ratio 3.976; confidence interval 1.339-11.802; P = .013) and ineffective shocks alone at follow-up (hazard ratio 19.030; confidence interval 4.752-76.203; P = .003).

CONCLUSION

In 2 cohorts of strictly propensity-matched patients, DT performance was not associated with significant differences in cardiovascular mortality and ineffective shocks. The PRAETORIAN score is capable of correctly identifying a large percentage of patients at risk for ineffective shock conversion in both cohorts.