Shock efficacy of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for prevention of sudden cardiac death: initial multicenter experience

Reduction of inappropriate shock rate through signal filtering (smart-pass) in patients with implantable subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICD) are effective in protecting patients against sudden death but expose them to a higher risk of inappropriate shock (IAS). We performed a systematic search of studies published between January 2010 and December 2019 assessing IAS due to cardiac oversensing by the selection process (PRISMA) and identified 17 eligible articles. Fifteen studies were observational, and two studies were retrospective. For the meta-analysis, the final population included 6111 patients: 3356 without SMART pass (SP) filter (group 1) and 2755 with SP filter (group 2). 1614 shocks (appropriate shocks plus IAS) were registered (1245 in group 1 and 369 in group 2). The random effects meta-analysis estimated an overall IAS rate of 7.78% (95% confidence interval: 4.93-10.64) with substantial variability between studies (I square=96.05%, p<0.001). The IAS rate was 10.75% (95% confidence interval: 8.49-13.02) for group 1 and 3.61% (95% confidence interval: 1.36-5.86) for group 2 (p<0.001). Third-generation S-ICD technology with SP filters reduced the risk of cardiac signal-related IAS.

Efficacy and safety of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with and without obesity: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has emerged as an alternative to transvenous systems for prevention of sudden cardiac death. However, concerns have been raised regarding its efficacy and safety in obese individuals.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the S-ICD in patients with obesity by assessing the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of multiple databases was conducted for English-language peer-reviewed studies reporting clinical outcomes in S-ICD recipients with (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and without obesity (BMI <30 kg/m2). Data on preimplantation screening failure, defibrillation testing, complications, appropriate and inappropriate shocks, and survival were analyzed using standard, random-effects, meta-analytical techniques.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies involving 20,486 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference in mean BMI values of patients with failed or successful preimplantation screening (mean difference -0.60 kg/m2; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.06 to 0.86). Obesity was associated with higher rates of failed defibrillation testing at ≤65 J (odds ratio [OR] 2.16; 95% CI 1.39-3.35), and malpositioning/suboptimal positioning occurred more frequently in obese compared to nonobese patients (OR 3.37; 95% CI 1.76-6.44). Increased BMI as a continuous variable (per increase in 1 kg/m2 BMI) was associated with elevated defibrillation thresholds (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.03-1.08); higher risk of complications (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.05); a trend toward an increased number of appropriate shocks (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.04); and no significant increase in the risk of inappropriate shocks (HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.99-1.03).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis underscores the importance of considering obesity in S-ICD implantation decisions. Although S-ICD remains effective in obese patients, attention to potential technical challenges and higher complication rates is warranted.

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.

The Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: A Patient Perspective

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is a new technology for the management of ICD patients. But what is the patients' perspective? Previous studies on the transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) showed that device implantation is related not only to anxiety and depression because of the fear of ICD shocks, but also to many biopsychosocial factors like body image changes, perceived reduction of socialization and limitation in professional and sports activities. Anxiety and distress are more evident in younger women because of aesthetic reasons. The scar size and the position of the S-ICD can help these patients and positively influence their social relationships. Moreover, the position of the S-ICD reduces possible complications from catheters due to stress injury and can improve patients' professional life by avoiding some work activity limitations. An S-ICD can be also a good option for athletes in avoiding subclavian crash and reducing inappropriate shocks. However, some questions remain unsolved because an S-ICD is not suitable for patients with indications for pacing, cardiac resynchronization therapy or anti-tachycardia pacing. In conclusion, the use of an S-ICD can assist physicians in reducing the negative impact of implantation on the well-being of some groups of patients by helping them to avoid depression and anxiety as well as improving their noncompliance with their medical treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of an Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator

BACKGROUND

The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has a single lead implanted substernally to enable pause-prevention pacing, antitachycardia pacing, and defibrillation energy similar to that of transvenous ICDs. The safety and efficacy of extravascular ICDs are not yet known.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, single-group, nonrandomized, premarket global clinical study involving patients with a class I or IIa indication for an ICD, all of whom received an extravascular ICD system. The primary efficacy end point was successful defibrillation at implantation. The efficacy objective would be met if the lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage of patients with successful defibrillation was greater than 88%. The primary safety end point was freedom from major system- or procedure-related complications at 6 months. The safety objective would be met if the lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage of patients free from such complications was greater than 79%.

RESULTS

A total of 356 patients were enrolled, 316 of whom had an implantation attempt. Among the 302 patients in whom ventricular arrhythmia could be induced and who completed the defibrillation testing protocol, the percentage of patients with successful defibrillation was 98.7% (lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 96.6%; P<0.001 for the comparison with the performance goal of 88%); 299 of 316 patients (94.6%) were discharged with a working ICD system. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients free from major system- or procedure-related complications at 6 months was 92.6% (lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 89.0%; P<0.001 for the comparison with the performance goal of 79%). No major intraprocedural complications were reported. At 6 months, 25 major complications were observed, in 23 of 316 patients (7.3%). The success rate of antitachycardia pacing, as assessed with generalized estimating equations, was 50.8% (95% CI, 23.3 to 77.8). A total of 29 patients received 118 inappropriate shocks for 81 arrhythmic episodes. Eight systems were explanted without extravascular ICD replacement over the 10.6-month mean follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective global study, we found that extravascular ICDs were implanted safely and were able to detect and terminate induced ventricular arrhythmias at the time of implantation. (Funded by Medtronic; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04060680.).

Deep learning-based insights on T:R ratio behaviour during prolonged screening for S-ICD eligibility

BACKGROUND

A major predictor of eligibility of subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillators (S-ICD) is the T:R ratio. The eligibility cut-off of the T:R ratio incorporates a safety margin to accommodate for fluctuations of ECG signal amplitudes. We introduce a deep learning-based tool that accurately measures the degree of T:R ratio fluctuations and explore its role in S-ICD screening.

METHODS

Patients were fitted with Holters for 24 h to record their S-ICD vectors. Our tool was used to assess the T:R ratio over the duration of the recordings. Multiple T:R ratio cut-off values were applied, identifying patients at high risk of T-wave oversensing (TWO) at each of the proposed values. The purpose of our study is to identify the ratio that recognises patients at high risk of TWO while not inappropriately excluding true S-ICD candidates.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients (age 54.5 + / - 21.3 years, 64.8% male) were recruited. Fourteen patients had heart-failure, 7 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, 7 had normal hearts, 6 had congenital heart disease, and 3 had prior inappropriate S-ICD shocks due to TWO. 54% of patients passed the screening at a T: R of 1:3. All patients passed the screening at a T: R of 1:1. The only subgroup to wholly pass the screening utilising all the proposed ratios are the participants with normal hearts.

CONCLUSION

We propose adopting prolonged screening to select patients eligible for S-ICD with low probability of TWO and inappropriate shocks. The appropriate T:R ratio likely lies between 1:3 and 1:1. Further studies are required to identify the optimal screening thresholds.

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.

The Role of Subcutaneous ICDs in the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death

The ICD is an important therapy in the prevention of sudden cardiac death. The transvenous-ICD (TV-ICD) has been the primary device used for this purpose. However, mechanical and infectious complications occur with traditional TV-ICDs increasing morbidity and mortality. The subcutaneous-ICD (S-ICD) system was developed to circumvent some of these complications, but S-ICDs have their inherent set of limitations as well. These include inappropriate shock delivery, lack of bradycardia, antitachycardia or CRT pacing therapy and shorter device longevity. The S-ICD is now included in guidelines as an acceptable alternative to TV-ICDs among patients without pacing indications. This review discusses the rationale for S-ICDs by reviewing studies including the PRAETORIAN, PAS and UNTOUCHED trials.

Bilateral Cardiac Sympathectomy and Extrapericardial Coil Implantation for the Management of Electrical Storm

We present a novel multidisciplinary approach for the treatment of electrical storm combining bilateral cardiac sympathectomy, extrapericardial coil insertion, and implantable cardioverter defibrillator upgrade in a patient with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and ventricular arrhythmias refractory to conventional therapies. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.)

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.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Therapy in Heart Failure

The population of patients with heart failure continues to grow, which introduced significant challenges in clinical practice related to the management of cardiac arrhythmia and advanced heart failure syndromes. Device therapy has increasingly become essential in the management of life-threatening arrhythmia and clinical heart failure in this population. This review will discuss the use of cardiac implantable electronic devices in heart failure with primary focus on sudden cardiac death prevention and cardiac resynchronization, including published evidence and evolving technologies.

Undetected displacement of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead. importance of performing a chest X-ray during the first weeks post-implant: a case report

Background

In recent years, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implants have progressively increased and have been shown to be safe and highly successful, affording low reintervention rates regardless of the technique used.

Case summary

We present a case of S-ICD implantation in a patient diagnosed with idiopathic ventricular fibrillation. In the first follow-up consultation the patient showed appropriate detection parameters in the three configurations. However, chest X-ray revealed lead displacement with a tip migration from the manubrium area of the sternum to the xiphoid process.

Discussion

This case highlights the importance of performing at least one chest X-ray during the first weeks after S-ICD implantation, allowing the detection of a problem such as lead displacement, which can lead to undersensing of ventricular arrhythmias or S-ICD oversensing.

Multicentre early experience with totally subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillators in Poland

INTRODUCTION

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) have a strong position in the prevention of sudden death. Nowadays, the most commonly used high-energy cardiac devices are transvenous ICDs. A new technology of totally subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICD) was invented and recently introduced into clinical practice in order to reduce lead-related complications of conventional ICDs. The aim of this paper is to present early experience with this new technology implemented in a few centres in Poland.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Medical records of patients who had S-ICD-related interventions in Poland were retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

During the first year of S-ICD introduction into the Polish health system 18 patients underwent surgery connected with S-ICDs. Majority of them (17 patients) were implanted de novo. In one patient surgical revision of a device implanted abroad was performed. Most of patients (78%) had S-ICDs implanted for secondary prevention. Inability of transvenous system implantation due to venous access obstruction or high risk of infection related with transvenous leads accounted for 83% of indications for S-ICD. Only in three patients were S-ICDs implanted due to young age and active mode of life. The implantations of S-ICDs were performed without important early or late complications. During follow-up one patient had episodes of ventricular arrhythmia successfully terminated with high-energy shocks. One patient died due to progression of heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

S-ICD implantation procedure has been successfully and safely introduced in Polish clinical routine. Nevertheless, despite clear indications in recent ESC guidelines, this therapy is not directly reimbursed in Poland and needs individual application for refund.

Device updates successfully reduce T‑wave oversensing and inappropriate shocks in subcutaneous ICD patients

Aims

To analyse the impact of device and software updates on the prevention of T‑wave oversensing (TWOS) and inappropriate shocks (IS) in subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) patients.

Background

TWOS is a feared complication after implantation. It may lead to harmful IS. To date, specific strategies to reduce these events are lacking.

Methods

In this retrospective single-centre trial we analysed 146 S‑ICD patients who were implanted between 2010 and 2016. In all eligible consecutive patients (n = 139), follow-up of at least 6 weeks was studied. The incidence of TWOS/IS was analysed in patients receiving a 2^nd generation S‑ICD (Emblem-S-ICD) between 2014 and 2016 (Emblem). Their outcome was compared with a control group (SQ) treated with the SQ1010 device between 2010 and 2014, who were followed up for a maximum of 2 years. Furthermore, to test if the software update SMR8 reduces inappropriate shocks in the SQ1010-S-ICD population, the incidence of TWOS/IS was evaluated before and after update installation.

Results

Basic characteristics and indications for S‑ICD implantation were similar in both groups. However, the cumulative incidence of TWOS/IS was significantly decreased in Emblem vs. SQ (SQ: 15.4%, n = 14/91 vs. Emblem 4.2%, n = 2/48; p = 0.049). Furthermore, with regards to the SQ population we also observed a trend towards a significant reduction of TWOS/IS after installation of the software update SMR8 in 2014 (before update: 13.4%, n = 11/82 vs. after update: 4.6%, 3/65, p = 0.07).

Conclusion

2^nd generation devices but probably also the SMR8 software update reduce the incidence of TWOS/IS in S‑ICD patients.

Safety and Efficacy of Subcutaneous Cardioverter Defibrillator in Patients at High Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death - Primary Japanese Experience

BACKGROUND

The entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) was introduced as a new alternative to conventional transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) in Japan in February 2016, but its safety and efficacy are unclear.Methods and Results:A total of 60 patients (48 men, median age, 60 years; IQR, 44-67 years; primary prevention, n=24) underwent S-ICD implantation between February 2016 and August 2017. The device pocket was formed in the intermuscular space between the serratus anterior muscle and the latissimus dorsi muscle, and the parasternal S-ICD lead was placed according to pre-implant screening. Defibrillation test was performed in 56 patients (93%). Ventricular fibrillation (VF) was induced in 55 patients and terminated by a single 65-J shock in all patients. The median time to shock therapy was 13.4 s (IQR, 12.1-14.9 s) and the median post-shock impedance of the S-ICD lead was 64 Ω (IQR, 58-77 Ω). There were no operation-related complications or subsequent infectious complications. During follow-up (median, 275 days; IQR, 107-421 days), 1 patient (1.7%) had appropriate shock for VF with successful termination, whereas 5 patients (8.3%) had inappropriate shock due to oversensing of myopotential (n=3) or T-wave (n=1), and detection of supraventricular tachycardia (n=1).

CONCLUSIONS

S-ICD is a safe and effective alternative to conventional TV-ICD. The long-term safety and efficacy of the S-ICD need further investigation.

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: A tertiary center experience

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to evaluate subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) patients with regard to underlying etiology, peri-procedural outcome, appropriate/inappropriate shocks, and complications during follow-up.

METHODS

All patients who underwent S-ICD implantation from February 2013 to March 2017 at an academic hospital in Vienna were included. Medical records were examined and follow-up interrogations of devices were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 79 S-ICD patients (58.2% males) with a mean age of 44.5 ± 17.2 years were followed for a mean duration of 12.8 ± 13.7 months. A majority of patients (58.2%) had S-ICD for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. The most common of the 16 underlying etiologies were ischemic cardiomyopathy, non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, and idiopathic ventricular fibrillation. The lead was implanted to the left sternal border in 96.2% of cases, between muscular layers in 72.2%. Mean implant time was 45 min, 3 patients were induced, and all patients except one were programmed to two zones. Six (7.6%) patients experienced at least one appropriate therapy for ventricular arrhythmias and the time to first event ranged from 1 to 52 months. Seven patients experienced inappropriate shocks due to T-wave oversensing, atrial tachycardia with rapid atrioventricular conduction, external electromagnetic interference, and/or baseline oversensing due to lead movement. Four patients underwent revision for lead repositioning (n = 1), loose device suture (n = 1), and infection (n = 2).

CONCLUSIONS

While S-ICDs are a feasible and effective treatment, issues remain with inappropriate shock and infection.

Initial experience with the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator with the real costs of hospitalization analysis in a single Polish center

BACKGROUND

The recent introduction of an entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibril-lator (S-ICD) represents an important progress in the defibrillation technology towards a less invasive approach. This is a single-center observational study of S-ICD implantations in Poland.

METHODS

The S-ICD was implanted in 11 patients with standard indications for an ICD. Patients in whom the device was implanted were evaluated for adverse events and device function at hospital discharge. All hospitalization costs were calculated and summed up for all patients. Costs were divided into following categories: medical materials, pharmaceuticals, operating theatre staff, cardiology depart-ment staff, laboratory tests, non-laboratory tests and additional non-medical costs.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 51.6 ± 16.4 years, 9 were men and 2 were women. Four pa-tients had atrial fibrillation as the basal rhythm, 1 patient had atrial flutter and 6 patients had sinus rhythm. All patients had at least one condition that precluded the use of a traditional ICD system or the S-ICD was preferred due to other conditions, i.e. a history complicated transvenous ICD therapy (18%), anticipated higher risk of infection (27%), lack or difficult vascular access (18%), young age and anticipated high cumulated risk of lifetime device therapy (36%). The mean duration of the im-plantation procedure was 2 h. One patient developed a postoperative pocket hematoma. Mean total time of hospitalization was 28 (6-92) days. Average cost of hospitalization per patient was 21,014.29 EUR (minimal = 19,332.71 EUR and maximal = 24,824.14 EUR).

CONCLUSIONS

S-ICD implantation appears to provide a viable alternative to transvenous ICD, espe-cially for patients without pacing requirements.

The Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: New Insights and Expanding Populations

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have become a mainstay of treatment in patients at risk for sudden cardiac death. The majority of contemporary ICDs are implanted transvenously; however, this approach carries acute procedural and long-term risks. The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) was developed, in part, to circumvent some of these adverse events or as an alternative option in patients unable to undergo transvenous implantation. Early promising trials evaluating the S-ICD were small and focused on niche populations. More recently, larger trials included broader populations with worse heart failure and co-morbidities that may be more representative of typical ICD recipients. These studies have consistently demonstrated positive results. This review describes the S-ICD system, implantation, and the safety and efficacy of the device.

Is shock impedance value alone to be considered a good predictor for shock efficacy in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator?

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) is easy to implant, with poor risks of the patient. However, fat is a poor current conductor and increases defibrillation threshold. As shock impedance alone should not be considered a good efficacy predictor of an S-ICD system, an X-ray latero-lateral view for lead position should be achieved.

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators Implantation Without Defibrillation Threshold Testing: A Single Center Experience

Background

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) system has been proven to be an effective therapy for prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in selected patients. Although the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation (SIMPLE) trial has shown that defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing is not necessary for transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) systems, it is still recommended for S-ICD systems. We aimed to study the efficacy and safety of S-ICD implantation without DFT in our Heart Center with the comparison of S-ICD patients’ outcome to those with a single chamber TV-ICD without DFT in the same period.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patients underwent S-ICD without DFT from December 2014 to May 2016 with the comparison to single chamber TV-ICD patients implanted during the same period.

Results

Thirty consecutive patients (23 males (76.7%); mean age 41 ± 13 years; mean left ventricular ejection fraction 30±12%) received a S-ICD for primary (25 patients, 83.3%) or secondary prevention (five patients, 16.7%) of SCD. During a mean follow-up of 710.6 ± 190 days, three patients received 38 appropriate ICD shocks (90.5%), and two patients received four inappropriate shocks (9.5%). There were two mortalities (6.7%): one cardiac and one non-cardiac. When compared to 30 consecutive who received a single chamber TV-ICD during the same period, there was no significant difference in mortality.

Conclusions

Implantation of S-ICD using intermuscular approach without DFT seems to be safe and effective. Data from large S-ICD registries with long-term follow-up, and preferably randomized controlled studies, are needed to confirm this finding.

The Subcutaneous Defibrillator

The transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been shown in multiple studies to be effective in the prevention of sudden cardiac death in select populations. The Achilles heel of traditional ICD technology has been the transvenous lead. The subcutaneous ICD provides effective sudden death protection while avoiding lead-related complications of traditional transvenous systems. The subcutaneous ICD is a reasonable option for patients with an ICD indication who do not need bradycardia pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Low Prevalence of Inappropriate Shocks in Patients With Inherited Arrhythmia Syndromes With the Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillator Single Center Experience and Long-Term Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Up to 40% of patients with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) experience lead-associated complications and may suffer from high complication rates when lead extraction is indicated. Subcutaneous ICD may represent a feasible alternative; however, the efficacy of the subcutaneous ICD in the detection and treatment of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with hereditary arrhythmia syndromes has not been fully evaluated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with primary hereditary arrhythmia syndromes who fulfilled indication for defibrillator placement were eligible for enrollment. Between 2010 and 2016, 62 consecutive patients with primary hereditary arrhythmia syndromes, without indication for antibradycardia therapy, were enrolled in the study. Mean follow-up was 31.0±14.2 months. The study cohort comprised of 24 patients with Brugada syndrome, 17 with idiopathic ventricular fibrillation, 6 with long-QT syndrome, 1 with short-QT syndrome, 3 with catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, 8 with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and 3 with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. Thirty-nine patients were implanted for secondary prevention. Twenty-two patients had a previous transvenous ICD implanted, but required revision because of infection or lead defects. A total of 20 spontaneous ventricular tachyarrhythmias requiring shock intervention occurred in 10 patients during follow-up. All episodes were terminated within the first ICD shock delivery with 80 J. Two patients had inappropriate therapies caused by oversensing following an uneventful implantation. No pocket-site infections and no premature revisions have occurred during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study supports the use of the subcutaneous ICD for both secondary and primary prevention of sudden cardiac death as a reliable alternative to the conventional transvenous ICD.

T Wave Safety Margin during the Process of ICD Implantation As a Novel Predictor of T Wave Oversensing

Introduction: T wave oversensing (TWOS) is a major drawback of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and data on predictors of TWOS in ICD is limited. We aimed to calculate a novel index of T wave safety margin (TWSM) and assess its potential for evaluating TWOS during the procedure of ICD implantation. Methods and Results: Thirty-two consecutive patients with ICD implantation were enrolled. During each procedure of ICD implantation, different ICD generators were connected to implanted sensing lead through active-fixation leads and bridging cables. R and T wave amplitudes were measured on ICD printouts according to the gain. The ICDs were programed to the most sensitive settings to reveal possible TWOS. A novel index TWSM was calculated according to the corresponding sensing algorithm of ICD. There was discrepancy of R wave amplitudes measured by different ICDs (P < 0.01). In Fortify and Teligen ICDs, T wave amplitudes showed no difference (P > 0.05) and TWSMs were sufficiently high (post sensing: 13.0 ± 7.6 and 28.3 ± 16.5, respectively, post pacing: 5.0 ± 2.2 and 4.6 ± 0.9, respectively). In nine patients with 10 TWOS episodes detected during the procedure of ICD implantation, generators with the highest TWSM were chosen. Only one TWOS episode during pacing was recorded during the 25 ± 7 mo follow-up period. Conclusions: We first propose the index of TWSM during ICD implantation as a potentially efficient predictor for TWOS. Evaluation of TWSM might help to reduce TWOS episodes in patients with high risk of TWOS. Prospective studies are warranted to validate this index and its potential to reduce TWOS episodes.

Implantation of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators in Europe: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey

AIMS

The purpose of this European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) survey is to provide an overview of the current use of subcutaneous cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) across a broad range of European centres.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A questionnaire was sent via the internet to centres participating in the EHRA electrophysiology research network. Questions included standards of care and policies used for patient management, indications, and techniques of implantation of the S-ICDs. In total, 52 centres replied to the questionnaire. More than one-fourth of the responding centres does not implant the S-ICD (n = 14, 27%). The majority reported to have implanted <10 (50%) or 10-29 (23%) S-ICDs during the last 12 months. Lack of reimbursement (25%), non-availability (19%), and cost of the device (25%) seem to limit the use of the S-ICD. The most commonly reported indications for S-ICD implantation are a difficult vascular access (82%), a history of previous complicated transvenous ICD (8O%), young age (69%), or an anticipated higher risk of infection (63%). Inappropriate therapies were the most frequently reported major problems (38%), but the majority of respondents (51%) never encountered any issue after an S-ICD implantation. Most of the respondents (83%) anticipate significant increase of S-ICD use within the next 2 years.

CONCLUSION

This survey provides a contemporary insight into S-ICD implantation and management in the European electrophysiology centres, showing different approaches, depending on local policies. Cost issues or lack of reimbursement strongly influence the dissemination of the device. However, most respondents retain that S-ICD use will significantly increase in a very short time.

The subcutaneous ICD as an alternative to the conventional ICD system: Initial experience in Greece and a review of the literature

The introduction of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in clinical practice has revolutionized our therapeutic approach for both primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD), as it has proven to be superior to medical therapy in treating potentially life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias and has resulted in reduced mortality rates. However, implantation of a conventional ICD carries a non-negligible risk of periprocedural and long-term complications associated with the transvenous ICD leads. The entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) has recently emerged as a therapeutic alternative to the conventional ICD for patients with various cardiopathies and who are at high risk of SCD. The main advantage is the avoidance of vascular access and thus avoidance of complications associated with transvenous leads. Patients without pacing indications, such as bradycardia, a need for antitachycardia pacing or cardiac resynchronization, as well as those at higher risk of complications from transvenous lead implantation are perfect candidates for this novel technology. The subcutaneous ICD has proven to be equally safe and effective compared to transvenous ICD systems in early clinical trials. Further technical improvements of the system will likely lead to the expansion of indications and widespread use of this technology. In the present review, we discuss the indications for this system, summarize early clinical experiences and highlight the advantages and disadvantages of this novel technology. In addition, we present the first two cases of subcutaneous cardioverter defibrillator system implantation in Greece.

Failed Maximal Defibrillation Threshold Testing in the Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) registry included very few patients with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40. We present a case of a 40-year-old male with a BMI of 44 and ejection fraction of 25% who underwent S-ICD implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in the setting of a nonischemic cardiomyopathy. Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing failed at high output. A posterior to anterior radiograph demonstrated migration of the components despite positioning under fluoroscopy. After repositioning, repeat DFT testing showed an inconsistent efficacy. We discuss the probabilistic nature of DFT testing, clinical factors affecting the S-ICD implant in the obese population and offer a novel insight from this specific experience.

Leadless Cardiac Devices-Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

OPINION STATEMENT

Since the initial introduction of pacemakers and defibrillators, the rapid growth in microcircuit and battery technology has increased the longevity demands and exposed the vulnerabilities of transvenous leads. Over a half of century later, leadless pacemaker and defibrillation systems are just reaching the clinical arena. Despite the remarkable advantages of leadless pacing systems, the data are still quite limited and broad implementation of these technologies need to occur in a cautious and deliberate fashion as the peri-procedural risks remains high. Two of the three systems, Nanostim(TM) (St. Jude Medical) and Micra Transcatheter Pacing System (Medtronic Inc.), have shown the greatest applicability, although they are currently only limited to single chamber pacing and procedural risks are modest. The WiCS(TM)-LV system (EBR Systems, Inc.) is anatomically limited and benefits a small subset of patients. Leadless implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy, the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD, Cameron Health/Boston Scientific), has demonstrated encouraging short-term safety and efficacy data supporting its use. Since its introduction, modifications to the implant procedure, pre-screening of patients, and programming of the devices have reduced procedural-related complications and inappropriate shocks. The S-ICD is a promising technology, but it is premature to conclude that it will supplant conventional ICDs. At this current time, the S-ICD may benefit select patients, such as those with recurrent bacteremia, vascular access limitations, and who may be prone to transvenous lead failure.

Right Parasternal Lead Placement Increases Eligibility for Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) provides an attractive option for patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) in whom a transvenous defibrillator is contraindicated. Given the unusual cardiac anatomy and repolarization strain, the surface electrocardiogram (ECG) is frequently abnormal, potentially increasing the screen failure rate.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We prospectively screened 100 adult CHD patients regardless of the presence of clinical indication for ICD utilizing a standard left sternal lead placement, as well as a right parasternal position. Baseline patient and 12-lead ECG characteristics were examined to assess for predictors of screen failure. Average patient age was 48±14 years, average QRS duration was 134±37 ms, and 13 patients were pacemaker dependent. Using the standard left parasternal electrode position, 21 patients failed screening. Of these 21 patients with screen failure, 9 passed screening with the use of right parasternal electrode positioning, reducing screening failure rate from 21% to 12%. QT interval and inverted T wave anywhere in V2-V6 leads were found to be independent predictors of left parasternal screening failure (P=0.01 and P=0.04, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of both left and right parasternal screening should be used in evaluation of CHD patients for S-ICD eligibility. ECG repolarization characteristics were also identified as novel predictors of screening failure in this group. (Circ J 2016; 80: 1328-1335).

Intraoperative Defibrillation Testing of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Systems-A Simple Issue?

Background

The results of the recently published randomized SIMPLE trial question the role of routine intraoperative defibrillation testing. However, testing is still recommended during implantation of the entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD) system. To address the question of whether defibrillation testing in S‐ICD systems is still necessary, we analyzed the data of a large, standard‐of‐care prospective single‐center S‐ICD registry.

Methods and Results

In the present study, 102 consecutive patients received an S‐ICD for primary (n=50) or secondary prevention (n=52). Defibrillation testing was performed in all except 4 patients. In 74 (75%; 95% CI 0.66–0.83) of 98 patients, ventricular fibrillation was effectively terminated by the first programmed internal shock. In 24 (25%; 95% CI 0.22–0.44) of 98 patients, the first internal shock was ineffective and further internal or external shock deliveries were required. In these patients, programming to reversed shock polarity (n=14) or repositioning of the sensing lead (n=1) or the pulse generator (n=5) led to successful defibrillation. In 4 patients, a safety margin of <10 J was not attained. Nevertheless, in these 4 patients, ventricular arrhythmias were effectively terminated with an internal 80‐J shock.

Conclusions

Although it has been shown that defibrillation testing is not necessary in transvenous ICD systems, it seems particular important for S‐ICD systems, because in nearly 25% of the cases the primary intraoperative test was not successful. In most cases, a successful defibrillation could be achieved by changing shock polarity or by optimizing the shock vector caused by the pulse generator or lead repositioning.

Advances in implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy

Since the first implant in 1980, implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) technology has progressed rapidly. Modern ICD's have hundreds of programmable options with the general goal of preventing inappropriate shocks and providing shocks for truly life threatening symptomatic ventricular arrhythmias. New studies on ICD programming have shown the benefits of prolonged detection intervals in reaching this goal. Anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) therapy has become an important adjunct to defibrillator shocks. Remote monitoring technologies have surfaced which have been shown to identify arrhythmias and problems with the device in an expedient fashion. The subcutaneous ICD offers the advantage of avoiding intravascular leads and their inherent risks. Lastly, the current understanding of the effects of MRI in ICD patients has advanced creating new opportunities to provide MRI safely to such patients.

First clinical experience of the safety and feasibility of total subcutaneous implantable defibrillator in an Asian population

AIMS

The safety and feasibility of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has been demonstrated in the treatment of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VT). Nonetheless, its safety and feasibility in an Asian population with smaller body-build is unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty-one Asian patients who underwent S-ICD from 1 April 2014 to 2 February 2015 in five institutions in Hong Kong and Singapore were retrospectively reviewed. Twenty-one patients with a mean age of 50.0 ± 14.1 years (range 29-77 years, 82.6% male) were included. Among them, 17 (81.0%) were Chinese, 3 (14.3%) were Malay, and 1 (4.8%) was Indian. Their mean body mass index was 23.0 ± 4.0 kg/m(2). An S-ICD was implanted for primary and secondary prevention in 13 (61.9%) and 8 (38.1%) patients, respectively. The indications included Brugada syndrome (n = 6, 28.6%), ischaemic cardiomyopathy (CMP, n = 6, 28.6%), dilated CMP (n = 4, 19.0%), hypertrophic CMP (n = 2, 9.5%), and idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (n = 2, 9.5%). Three patients (14.3%) had prior infected transvenous ICD. There were no acute complications but eight wound complications (persistent wound bleeding requiring intervention = 2; delayed wound healing: upper sternal wound = 3; generator site = 1; local wound infection = 2) were observed in six (28.2%) patients. After a mean follow-up of 107.2 ± 81.3 days (range of 14-254 days), one patient underwent three successful appropriate shocks for treatment of VTs. No inappropriate therapy was documented.

CONCLUSION

Our initial experience shows that S-ICD is a feasible treatment for VT among an Asian population with smaller body-build. There was nonetheless a relatively high rate of wound complications.

The Entirely Subcutaneous Defibrillator - A New Generation and Future Expectations

Although conventional implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have proved effective in the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD), they still appear to be limited by non-trivial acute and long-term complications. The recent advent of an entirely subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) represents a further step in the evolution of defibrillation technology towards a less-invasive approach. This review highlights some historical and current issues concerning the S-ICD that may offer a viable therapeutic option in selected patients at high risk of SCD and in whom pacing is not required. After the CE Mark and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals, the S-ICD is being implanted worldwide with growing clinical data regarding its safety and efficacy (the EFFORTLESS Registry). The recently developed new generation of S-ICD (EMBLEM, Boston Scientific) demonstrates favourable features including a smaller device, longer longevity and remote-monitoring compatibility. Further innovations in the S-ICD system and potential integration with leadless pacing may play an important role in defibrillation therapy and prevention of SCD in the near future.

[ESC guidelines 2015 for ventricular arrhythmias and prevention of sudden cardiac death. What is new?]

The new European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmia and the prevention of sudden cardiac death, recently published at the annual ESC meeting in London, contain an extensive update of the recommendations for the diagnostics, drug therapy, interventional and device therapy of ventricular arrhythmia. The new recommendations for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) treatment for primary and secondary prophylaxis of sudden cardiac death can be seen as a focused update of the previously published guidelines. Pre-existing recommendations for catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias have been partly extensively expanded with respect to the results of recent clinical trials. The guideline committee also adapted their recommendations regarding the hereditary arrhythmia syndromes to the 2013 consensus report of the American Heart Association (AHA), the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS).

The entirely subcutaneous defibrillator (s-icd): state of the art and selection of the ideal candidate

The traditional transvenous defibrillator has been one of the greatest advancement in Cardiology in the last 30 years and has demonstrated to reduce arrhythmic and total mortality in selected patients. However the traditional defibrillator can have a high price to pay in terms of complications, the "weakest link" being the transvenous/endocardial leads. The entirely subcutaneous defibrillator (S-ICD) has recently entered into the clinical scenario and represents a valid alternative to the transvenous device. S-ICD can provide substantial advantages, especially among some subgroups of patients (i.e. after device infection, in young patients and arrhythmogenic syndromes). However, given its characteristics, it is fundamental to choose patients that can benefit the most. In this review we will describe advantages and limitations of the SICD and point-out how to select the "ideal candidate" for the implantation.

Recent advances in the entirely subcutaneous ICD System

The entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD(®)) is emerging as a widely accepted therapeutic alternative to a conventional implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for prevention of sudden cardiac death. Essentially, the S-ICD(®) is promising in terms of reduction of electrode-related complications such as lead failure and infections. The conventional transvenous ICD has proven efficacy in various randomized clinical trials. The first results of S-ICD(®) studies confirm efficacy and safety in primary and secondary prevention as well. Owing to basic differences between S-ICD(®) and transvenous ICD-such as limited programming options and lack of pacing-not all patients are eligible for the S-ICD(®). Concerns exist regarding inappropriate shocks due to T-wave oversensing, dimensions of the device, and shorter battery longevity. However, the S-ICD(®) should be considered a useful supplementation of ICD therapy in those patients at risk for sudden cardiac death who are not expected to require pacing due to bradycardia or antitachycardic pacing.

Early experience with the subcutaneous ICD

The Subcutaneous Internal Cardiac Defibrillator (S-ICD) represents a major advance in the care of patients who have an indication for an internal cardiac defibrillator without pacing indications. Its main advantage is that it can deliver a shock to cardiovert ventricular arrhythmias utilising a tunnelled subcutaneous lead, negating the risks associated with conventional transvenous systems. Initial studies have shown comparable efficacy in cardioversion of induced and spontaneous ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) when compared to conventional transvenous systems. In addition, inappropriate shocks occurred in a similar percentage of patients to conventional ICD studies. Complication rates are low and relate largely to localised wound infections, treated successfully with antibiotics. The long term efficacy of the device is yet to be ascertained, however, a randomised trial & prospective registries are currently in progress to enable direct comparison with transvenous ICDs. This article summarises the early clinical experience and trials in the implantation of the S-ICD.