Myopotential Oversensing Is a Major Cause of Inappropriate Shock in Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillator in Japan

Postoperative intravenous patient-controlled analgesia improves pain management after subcutaneous implantable defibrillator implantation

Objective

Postoperative pain is a major issue with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICD). In 2020, we introduced intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) in addition to the conventional, request-based analgesia for postoperative pain control in S-ICD. To determine the effect and safety, we quantitatively assessed the effect of IV-PCA after S-ICD surgery over conventional methods.

Methods

During the study period, a total of 113 consecutive patients (age, 50.1 ± 15.5 years: males, 101) underwent a de novo S-ICD implantation under general anesthesia. While the postoperative pain was addressed with either request-based analgesia (by nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs, N = 68, dubbed as "PCA absent") or fentanyl-based IV-PCA in addition to the standard care (N = 45, dubbed as "PCA present"). The degree of postoperative pain from immediately after surgery to 1 week were retrospectively investigated by the numerical rating scale (NRS) divided into four groups at rest and during activity (0: no pain, 1-3: mild pain, 4-6: moderate pain, 7-10: severe pain).

Results

Although IV-PCA was removed on Day 1, it was associated with continued better pain control compared to PCA absent group. At rest, the proportion of patients expressing pain (mild or more) was significantly lower in the PCA present group from Day 0 to Day 4. In contrast to at rest, a better pain control continued through the entire study period of 7 days. No serious adverse events were observed. A few patients experienced nausea in both groups and the inter-group difference was not found significant.

Conclusion

IV-PCA suppresses postoperative pain in S-ICD without major safety concerns.

Third-generation subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator and intermuscular two-incision implantation technique in patients with Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy: 3-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Long-term data on the potential advantages of combining the third-generation subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) with modern software upgrade including the "SMART Pass", modern programming strategies and the intermuscular (IM) two-incision implantation technique in arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM) with different phenotypic variants are lacking. In this study we evaluated the long-term outcome of patients with ACM who underwent third-generation S-ICD (Emblem, Boston Scientific) and IM two-incision technique.

METHODS

The study population included 23 consecutive patients [70% male, median age 31 (24-46) years] diagnosed with ACM with different phenotypic variants who received third-generation S-ICD implantation with the IM two-incision technique.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 45.5 months [16-65], 4 patients (17.4%) received a at least one inappropriate shock (IS), with median annual event rate of 4.5%. Extra-cardiac oversensing (myopotential) during effort represented the only cause of IS. No IS due to T-wave oversensing (TWOS) were recorded. Only one patient (4.3%) experienced device-related complication consisting of premature cell battery depletion requiring device replacement. No device explantation because of need for anti-tachycardia pacing or ineffective therapy occurred. There was no significant difference between patients who did and did not experienced IS with regard to baseline clinical, ECG and technical characteristics. Five patients (21.7%) received appropriate shock on ventricular arrythmias.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our finding, although the third-generation S-ICD implanted with the IM two-incision technique appears to be associated with a low risk of complications and IS due to cardiac oversensing, the risk of IS due to myopotential mainly during effort should be considered.

A real‐world experience of subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardiac defibrillators—comparison with the PRAETORIAN study

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion