Lead Abandonment and Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (S-ICD) Implantation in a Cohort of Patients With ICD Lead Malfunction

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.

S-ICD Implantation "Tips and Tricks"

An implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was developed to provide protection against sudden cardiac death. Despite being effective in terminating ventricular arrhythmias, traditional transvenous ICDs appeared over time to have certain limitations related to the need for vascular access and the presence of foreign material inside the circulatory system (namely lead failure and infections). A subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) was developed to overcome those limitations and to provide prevention against sudden cardiac death from outside the cardiovascular system. Utilization of that modern method of treatment is constantly increasing worldwide, and new centers incorporate implantation of that system in their portfolio. This review aims to present the most relevant issues related to S-ICD implantation procedure, based on experience of the authors and an extensive literature search.

Opportunities and drawbacks of the subcutaneous defibrillator across different clinical settings

INTRODUCTION

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an established therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) and an alternative to a transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator system in selected patients. Beyond randomized clinical trials, many observational studies have described the clinical performance of S-ICD across different subgroups of patients.

AREAS COVERED

Our review aimed to describe the opportunities and drawbacks of the S-ICD, focusing on their use in special populations and across different clinical settings.

EXPERT OPINION

The choice to implant S-ICD should be based on the patient's tailored approach, which takes into account the adequate S-ICD screening at rest or during stress, the infective risk, the ventricular arrhythmia susceptibility, the progressive nature of the underlying disease, the work or sports activity, and the risk of lead-related complications.

Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator among drug-induced type-1 ECG pattern Brugada syndrome: a propensity score matching analysis from IBRYD study

No real-world data are available about the complications rate in drug-induced type 1 Brugada Syndrome (BrS) patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Aim of our study is to compare the device-related complications, infections, and inappropriate therapies among drug-induced type 1 BrS patients with transvenous- ICD (TV-ICD) versus subcutaneous-ICD (S-ICD). Data for this study were sourced from the IBRYD (Italian BRugada sYnDrome) registry which includes 619 drug-induced type-1 BrS patients followed at 20 Italian tertiary referral hospitals. For the present analysis, we selected 258 consecutive BrS patients implanted with ICD. 198 patients (76.7%) received a TV-ICD, while 60 a S-ICD (23.4%). And were followed-up for a median time of 84.3 [46.5-147] months. ICD inappropriate therapies were experienced by 16 patients (6.2%). 14 patients (7.1%) in the TVICD group and 2 patients (3.3%) in S-ICD group (log-rank P = 0.64). ICD-related complications occurred in 31 patients (12%); 29 (14.6%) in TV-ICD group and 2 (3.3%) in S-ICD group (log-rank P = 0.41). ICD-related infections occurred in 10 patients (3.88%); 9 (4.5%) in TV-ICD group and 1 (1.8%) in S-ICD group (log-rank P = 0.80). After balancing for potential confounders using the propensity score matching technique, no differences were found in terms of clinical outcomes between the two groups. In a real-world setting of drug-induced type-1 BrS patients with ICD, no significant differences in inappropriate ICD therapies, device-related complications, and infections were shown among S-ICD vs TV-ICD. However, a reduction in lead-related complications was observed in the S-ICD group. In conclusion, our evidence suggests that S-ICD is at least non-inferior to TV-ICD in this population and may also reduce the risk of lead-related complications which can expose the patients to the necessity of lead extractions.

The ATLAS Randomised Clinical Trial: What do the Superiority Results Mean for Subcutaneous ICD Therapy and Sudden Cardiac Death Prevention as a Whole?

This review sets out the key evidence comparing subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICDs) and transvenous ICDs and uses it to empower clinical cardiologists and those who implant ICDs to make optimum patient selections for S-ICD use. The evidence demonstrates that clinical trials performed until recently have proven the performance of S-ICDs. However, the latest data now available from the ATLAS randomised controlled trial have added new insights to this body of evidence. ATLAS demonstrates the superiority of S-ICDs over transvenous ICDs regarding lead-related complications, findings that point to promising opportunities for patients who are at risk of sudden cardiac death.

Device-Related Complications and Inappropriate Therapies Among Subcutaneous vs. Transvenous Implantable Defibrillator Recipients: Insight Monaldi Rhythm Registry

Introduction

In the context of randomized clinical trials, subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillators (S-ICDs) are non-inferior to transvenous ICDs (T-ICDs) concerning device-related complications or inappropriate shocks in patients with an indication for defibrillator therapy and not in need of pacing. We aimed at describing the clinical features of patients who underwent S-ICD implantation in our clinical practice, as well as the ICD-related complications and the inappropriate therapies among S-ICD vs. T-ICD recipients during a long-term follow-up.

Materials and Methods

All patients undergoing ICD, both S-ICD and TV-ICD, at Monaldi Hospital from January 1, 2015 to January 1, 2019 and followed up at our institution were included in the present analysis. The clinical variables associated with S-ICD implantation were evaluated by logistic regression analyses. We collected the ICD inappropriate therapies, ICD-related complications (including both pulse generator and lead-related complications), ICD-related infections, appropriate ICD therapies, and overall mortality. Kaplan-Meier (KM) analyses were performed to assess the risk of clinical outcome events between the two subgroups. A time-dependent Cox regression analysis was performed to adjust the results.

Results

Total 607 consecutive patients (mean age 53.8 ± 16.8, male 77.8%) with both TV-ICD (n: 290, 47.8%) and S-ICD (n: 317, 52.2%), implanted and followed at our center for a mean follow-up of 1614 ± 1018 days, were included in the study. At multivariate logistic regression analysis, an independent association between S-ICD implantation and ionic channel disease [OR: 6.01 (2.26–15.87); p < 0.0001] and ischemic cardiomyopathy [OR: 0.20 (0.12–0.35); p < 0.0001] was shown. The KM analysis did not show a significantly different risk of the inappropriate ICD therapies (log rank p = 0.64) between the two subgroups; conversely, a significant increase in the risk of ICD-related complications (log rank p = 0.02) and infections (log rank p = 0.02) in TV-ICD group was shown. The adjusted risk for ICD-related infections [OR: 0.07 (0.009–0.55), p = 0.01] and complications [0.31 (0.12–0.81), p = 0.01] was significantly lower among patients with S-ICD.

Conclusions

The choice to implant S-ICD was mainly driven by younger age and the presence of ionic channel disease; conversely ischemic cardiomyopathy reduces the probability to use this technology. No significant differences in inappropriate ICD therapies were shown among S-ICD vs. TV-ICD group; moreover, S-ICD is characterized by a lower rate of infectious and non-infectious complications leading to surgical revision or extraction.