Development of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for reducing sudden cardiac death

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.

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%.

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.