How likely is the sense-B-noise to affect patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and can we solve that problem in every case?

Incidence, implications, and management of sense-B-noise failure in subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator patients: insights from a large multicentre registry

AIMS

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) offer potentially distinct advantages over transvenous defibrillator systems. Recent randomized trials showed significantly lower lead failure rates than transvenous ICD. Still, S-ICDs remain associated with the risk of inappropriate shocks (IAS). While previous studies have reported varying causes of IAS, this study explores a rare cause of IAS, referred to as 'sense-B-noise.' It was recently described in case series, but its incidence has not been studied in a large cohort of S-ICD patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively reviewed data from patients implanted with S-ICD models 1010, A209, and A219 between October 2009 and July 2023 across nine centres in Europe and the USA. The analysis concentrated on determining the incidence and understanding the implications of sense-B-noise events. Sense-B-noise represents a rare manifestation of distinct electrogram abnormalities within the primary and alternate sensing vectors. Data were collected from medical records, device telemetry, and manufacturer reports for investigation. This registry is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05713708). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator devices of the 1158 patients were analysed. The median follow-up time for all patients was 46 (IQR 23-64) months. In 107 patients (9.2%) ≥1 IAS was observed during follow-up. Sense-B-noise failure was diagnosed in six (0.5 and 5.6% of all IAS) patients, in all patients, the diagnosis was made after an IAS episode. Median lead dwell time in the affected patients was 23 (2-70) months. To resolve the sense-B-noise defect, in three patients reprogramming to the secondary vector was undertaken, and two patients underwent system removal with subsequent S-ICD reimplantation due to low amplitude in the secondary vector. In one patient, the secondary vector was initially programmed, and subsequently, an S-ICD system exchange was performed due to T-wave-oversensing IAS episodes.

CONCLUSION

This multicentre analysis' findings shed light on a rare but clinically highly significant adverse event in S-ICD therapy. To our knowledge, we provide the first systematic multicentre analysis investigating the incidence of sense-B-noise. Due to being difficult to diagnose and limited options for resolution, management of sense-B-noise is challenging. Complete system exchange may be the only option for some patients. Educating healthcare providers involved in S-ICD patient care is crucial for ensuring accurate diagnosis and effective management of sense-B-noise issues.

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.