Low Risk of Inappropriate Shock Among Pediatric Patients With an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator: A Single Center Experience

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) are increasingly being used among the pediatric population for indications of both primary and secondary prevention. There is limited long-term data on the outcomes of pediatric patients following ICD implantation. The aim of this study was to investigate the characteristics of this population, burden of appropriate and inappropriate shock and complication rate in a large tertiary pediatric medical center. Included were children under the age of 18 years who underwent ICD implantation and had clinical follow up at our center. Data were retrospectively collected between study period 2005-2020. Primary outcome was the incidence of ICD shock appropriate and inappropriate. Secondary outcome was defining our patient population characteristics. Our cohort included 51 patients who underwent ICD implantation. Mean age at implantation was 10.9 ± 4.7 years and average follow-up time was 67 months. Diagnoses of implanted patients were: 28 (55%) patients with syndromes with risk for sudden death, cardiomyopathy in 14 patients (27%) and congenital heart disease (CHD) in 9 patients (18%). Forty-two (82%) patients had an ICD implanted for secondary prevention after experiencing a life-threatening arrhythmia and 9 (18%) for primary prevention. An endocardial system was implanted in 39 (76%) patients and an epicardial systems in 12 (24%) patients. A total of 20 (39%) patients received appropriate shocks for ventricular fibrillation(VF). 5 patients received inappropriate shocks, 4 due to sinus tachycardia and 1 due to rapidly conducted atrial fibrillation. Those who received an inappropriate shock had a significantly shorter ICD-programmed VF detection cycle length compared to those who did not receive an inappropriate shock (320 ms versus 270 ms, p = 0.062). This single center study demonstrates a high rate of appropriate ICD shocks (39%) and a low rate of inappropriate ICD shocks. Accurate programming of ICD devices in the pediatric population is paramount to avoid inappropriate ICD shocks.

Q waves are the strongest electrocardiographic variable associated with primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator benefit: a prospective multicentre study

AIM

The association of standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) markers with benefits of the primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has not been determined in the contemporary era. We analysed traditional and novel ECG variables in a large prospective, controlled primary prophylactic ICD population to assess the predictive value of ECG in terms of ICD benefit.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Electrocardiograms from 1477 ICD patients and 700 control patients (EU-CERT-ICD; non-randomized, controlled, prospective multicentre study; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02064192), who met ICD implantation criteria but did not receive the device, were analysed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. In ICD patients, the co-primary outcome of first appropriate shock was used. Mean follow-up time was 2.4 ± 1.1 years to death and 2.3 ± 1.2 years to the first appropriate shock. Pathological Q waves were associated with decreased mortality in ICD patients [hazard ratio (HR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-0.84; P < 0.01] and patients with pathological Q waves had significantly more benefit from ICD (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.93; P = 0.03). QTc interval increase taken as a continuous variable was associated with both mortality and appropriate shock incidence, but commonly used cut-off values, were not statistically significantly associated with either of the outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Pathological Q waves were a strong ECG predictor of ICD benefit in primary prophylactic ICD patients. Excess mortality among Q wave patients seems to be due to arrhythmic death which can be prevented by ICD.

Comparison of transvenous vs subcutaneous defibrillator therapy in patients with cardiac arrhythmia syndromes and genetic cardiomyopathies

BACKGROUND

Inherited arrhythmia syndromes and genetic cardiomyopathies attribute in a significant proportion to sudden cardiac death. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are the cornerstone in the prevention of sudden death in high-risk patients. However, ICD therapy is also associated with high rates of inappropriate shocks and/or device-related complications especially in young patients.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the outcome of high-risk patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes and genetic cardiomyopathies comparing two defibrillator technologies.

METHOD

Between 2010 and 2018, 183 consecutive patients from two large German tertiary care centers were enrolled in the study. The majority of patients (83%) had either cardiac channelopathies or idiopathic ventricular fibrillation without cardiac structural abnormalities, while the remaining 17% had a genetic cardiomyopathy (HCM/ARVC). Eighty-six patients (47%) received a transvenous ICD (TV-ICD), while a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) was implanted in another 97 patients (53%).

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, 30 patients had an appropriate ICD therapy (annual rate 3.8%). Fifteen patients experienced an inappropriate shock (annual rate 1.9%). Lead failure occurred in 17 (9%) patients and was less frequent in the S-ICD group (OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.38-0.62). Adverse defibrillator events, defined as a composite of inappropriate shocks and lead failure requiring surgical revision were significantly lower in the S-ICD group as compared to the TV-ICD group (OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.41-0.72). There was a non-significant trend towards lower appropriate shocks in the S-ICD group, that in combination with all-cause shocks yielded in a significantly higher freedom of any shock in the S-ICD group (RR 39%, p = 0.003). No deaths occurred during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The present data favor the use of the subcutaneous ICD for patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes and genetic cardiomyopathies who do not need anti-bradycardia pacing.

Are defibrillators less useful in patients with non-ischemic heart disease?

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

The benefits of implanted defibrillators in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD) are well known. However, the evidence is less robust in patients with non-ischemic heart disease (non-IHD). We aimed to determine whether patients with non-IHD have a similar incidence of appropriate shocks and all-cause mortality compared to those with IHD.

METHODS

In a retrospective single-center study we analyzed all patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators implanted for primary prevention between 2004 and 2014. The population was divided into two groups: patients with IHD and patients with non-IHD. The composite endpoint was appropriate shock and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eighty-one patients were studied, of whom 187 (66%) had IHD. Patients with IHD were older, more frequently male and with more cardiovascular risk factors. Mean follow-up was 55±42 months. Thirty-four patients (18%) with IHD and 20 patients (21%) with non-IHD had an appropriate shock (p=0.64). Eighty-nine patients (47%) with IHD and 36 (38%) with non-IHD died during follow-up (p=0.19). The rate of shocks or death over time was similar in patients with IHD and non-IHD according to Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis (log-rank p=0.10).

CONCLUSION

In this population, there were no differences in appropriate shocks or all-cause mortality in the two groups.

Associations between scar characteristics by cardiac magnetic resonance and changes in left ventricular ejection fraction in primary prevention defibrillator recipients

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improves over time in 25%-40% of patients with cardiomyopathy with primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). The determinants of LVEF improvement, however, are not well characterized.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to examine the associations of clinical risk factors and cardiac imaging markers with changes in LVEF after ICD implantation.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of cardiac magnetic resonance images in 202 patients who underwent primary prevention ICD implantation to quantify the amount of heterogeneous myocardial tissue (gray zone), dense core, and total scar. LVEF was reassessed at least once after ICD implantation.

RESULTS

Over a mean follow-up of 3 years, LVEF decreased in 43 (21.3%), improved in 88 (43.6%), and was unchanged in 71 (35.1%) of the patients. Baseline LVEF and myocardial scar characteristics were the strongest determinants of LVEF trajectory with high scar burden and increasing lack of myocardial viability associated with a greater decline in LVEF. There was a trend toward an association between both changes in LVEF and scar extent with subsequent appropriate ICD shock. Changes in LVEF were also strongly associated with heart failure hospitalizations.

CONCLUSION

Scar burden and characteristics were strong determinants, independent of baseline LVEF and other traditional cardiovascular risk factors, of changes in LVEF. Both worsened LVEF and high scar extent were associated with a trend toward increased risk of appropriate shock. These findings suggest that baseline cardiac magnetic resonance imaging of the myocardial substrate may provide important prognostic information on subsequent left ventricular remodeling and adverse events.

Catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia: Lessons learned from past clinical trials and implications for future clinical trials

Catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) has evolved in recent years, especially in patients with ischemic heart disease. Data from prospective studies show that VT catheter ablation reduces the risk of recurrent VT; however, there is a paucity of data on the effect of VT catheter ablation on mortality and patient-centered outcomes such as quality of life. Performing randomized clinical trials of VT catheter ablation can be fraught with challenges, and, as a result, several prior trials of VT catheter ablation had to be stopped prematurely. The main challenges are inability to blind the patient to therapy to obtain a traditional control group, high crossover rates between the 2 arms of the study, patient refusal to participate in trials in which they have an equal chance of receiving a "pill" vs an invasive procedure, heterogeneity of mapping and ablation techniques as well as catheters and equipment, rapid evolution of technology that may make findings of any long trial less relevant to clinical practice, lack of consensus on what constitutes acute procedural and long-term success, and presentation of patients to electrophysiologists late in the course of their disease. In this article, a panel of experts on VT catheter ablation and/or clinical trials of VT catheter ablation review challenges faced in conducting prior trials of VT catheter ablation and offer potential solutions for those challenges. It is hoped that the proposed solutions will enhance the feasibility of randomized clinical trials of VT catheter ablation.