Subcutaneous ICD screening with the Boston Scientific ZOOM programmer versus a 12-lead ECG machine

Personalized screening before subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: Usefulness and outcomes in clinical practice-the S-ICD screening SIS prospective study

BACKGROUND

Electrocardiographic screening before subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation is unsuccessful in around 10% of cases. A personalized screening method, by slightly moving the electrodes, to obtain a better R/T ratio has been described to overcome traditional screening failure.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of the SIS study were to assess to what extent a personalized screening method improves eligibility for S-ICD implantation and to evaluate the inappropriate shock rate after such screening success.

METHODS

All consecutive patients eligible for an S-ICD implantation were prospectively recruited across 20 French centers between December 2019 and January 2022. In case of traditional screening failure, patients received a second personalized screening. If at least 1 vector was positive, the personalized screening was considered successful, and the patient was eligible for implantation.

RESULTS

The study included 474 patients (mean age, 50.4 ± 14.1 years; 77.4% men). Traditional screening was successful in 456 (96.2%) cases. This figure rose to 98.3% (n = 466; P = .002) when personalized screening was performed. All patients implanted after successful personalized screening had correct signal detection on initial device interrogation. Nevertheless, after 1-year follow-up, 3 of the 7 patients (43%) implanted with personalized screening experienced inappropriate shock vs 18 of the 427 patients (4.2%) with traditional screening and S-ICD implantation (P = .003).

CONCLUSION

Traditional S-ICD screening was successful in our study in a high proportion of patients. Considering the small improvement in success of screening and a higher rate of inappropriate shock, a strategy of personalized screening cannot be routinely recommended.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov identifier: NCT04101253.

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator: A Contemporary Overview

The difference between subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) and transvenous ICDs (TV-ICDs) concerns a whole extra thoracic implantation, including a defibrillator coil and pulse generator, without endovascular components. The improved safety profile has allowed the S-ICD to be rapidly taken up, especially among younger patients. Reports of its role in different cardiac diseases at high risk of SCD such as hypertrophic and arrhythmic cardiomyopathies, as well as channelopathies, is increasing. S-ICDs show comparable efficacy, reliability, and safety outcomes compared to TV-ICD. However, some technical issues (i.e., the inability to perform anti-bradycardia pacing) strongly limit the employment of S-ICDs. Therefore, it still remains only an alternative to the traditional ICD thus far. This review aims to provide a contemporary overview of the role of S-ICDs compared to TV-ICDs in clinical practice, including technical aspects regarding device manufacture and implantation techniques. Newer outlooks and future perspectives of S-ICDs are also brought up to date.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in Hemodialysis and Chronic Kidney Disease Patients-An Experience-Based Narrative Review

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are a standard therapy utilized for different cardiac conditions. They are implanted in a growing number of patients, including those with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Cardiovascular diseases, including heart failure and malignant arrhythmia, remain the leading cause of mortality among CKD patients, especially in ESKD. CIED implantation procedures are considered minor surgery, typically with transvenous leads inserted via upper central veins, followed by an impulse generator introduced subcutaneously. A decision regarding optimal hemodialysis (HD) modality and the choice of permanent vascular access (VA) could be particularly challenging in CIED recipients. The potential consequences of arteriovenous access on the CIED side are related to (1) venous hypertension from lead-related central vein stenosis and (2) the risk of systemic infection. Therefore, when creating permanent vascular access, the clinical scenario may be complicated by the CIED presence on one side and the lack of suitable vessels for arteriovenous fistula on the contralateral arm. These factors suggest the need for an individualized approach according to different clinical situations: (1) CIED in a CKD patient; (2) CIED in a patient on hemodialysis CIED; and (3) VA in a patient with CIED. This complex clinical conundrum creates the necessity for close cooperation between cardiologists and nephrologists.

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.

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in review

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) is a completely extrathoracic device that has recently been FDA approved for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in select populations. Although the transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) has a proven mortality benefit in multiple patient populations, there are significant risks both with implantation and years after its placement. The S-ICD may help prevent some of these complications. Currently, the S-ICD is typically implanted in patients with prior device infection or at an increased risk for an infection, younger patients with difficult venous access related to either hemodialysis or difficult cardiac anatomy, patients who live active lifestyles, and those who may outlive the TV-ICD leads. There is an absolute contraindication for S-ICD implantations for patients who need pacing either for ventricular tachycardia or bradycardia because this device cannot perform these functions. To date, there are no randomized controlled trial (RCT) data evaluating the safety and efficacy of this relatively new device. Observational studies of both the S-ICD alone and in comparison with the TV-ICD have showed promising results, including a decrease in lead-related and periprocedural complications as well as a high level of effectiveness at terminating ventricular arrhythmias. These analyses over time may have contributed to the evolution and comfortability with the S-ICD system, as physicians are more often referring for and/or implanting this device for patients with appropriate indications. Furthermore, inappropriate shock rates with the S-ICD have decreased over time especially with dual zone programming. This review summarizes the results of a multitude of observational studies with respect to patient selection for the S-ICD, complication rates, appropriate and inappropriate shock rates, and programming. This review also tackles current ongoing randomized trials. Although the results of ongoing trials will be helpful, there is still a continued need to evaluate the efficacy of the S-ICD in broader patient populations including patients with several comorbidities and older patients so that more patients can be considered for this potentially lifesaving device.

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: An Overview of Implantation Techniques and Clinical Outcomes

Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD) is a significant health problem worldwide. Multiple randomized controlled trials have shown that Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICDs) are effective life-saving management option for individuals at risk of SCD in both primary and secondary prevention. Although the conventional transvenous ICDs (TV-ICDs) are safe and effective, there are potential complications associated with its use, including localized pocket or wound infection or systematic infection, a vascular access related complication such as pneumothorax, and venous thrombosis, and lead related complications such as dislodgement, malfunction, and perforation. Furthermore, transvenous leads placement may not be feasible in certain patients like those with venous anomaly or occlusion, or with the presence of intracardiac shunts. Transvenous leads extraction, when needed, is associated with considerable morbidity & mortality and requires significant skills and costs. Totally subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is designed to afford the same life-saving benefit of the conventional TV-ICDs while avoiding the shortcomings of the TV-leads and to simplify the implant techniques and hence expand the use of ICDs in clinical practice. It becomes commercially available after receiving CE mark in 2009, and its use increased significantly after its FDA approval in 2012. This review aims to give an overview of the S-ICD system components, implantation procedure, clinical indications, safety, efficacy, and future directions.