Follow-up of the first patients with a totally subcutaneous ICD in Germany from implantation till battery depletion

[History of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in Germany]

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was a breakthrough in the prevention of sudden cardiac death. After years of technical development in the USA, Michel Mirowski succeeded in proving reliable automatic defibrillation of ventricular tachyarrhythmias through initial human implantations in 1980, despite many obstacles. Nearly 4 years later, the first patients received ICDs at multiple centers in Germany. Subsequently, outside the USA, Germany became the country with highest implantation rates. The absolute number of implantations remained small as long as implantations required epicardial defibrillation electrodes and therefore thoracotomy by cardiac surgeons. Pacemaker-like implantation using a transvenous defibrillation electrode with a pectoral ICD became feasible in the early 1990s pushing implantation rates to the next level. Technical advancements were accompanied by clinical research in Germany, and often, the first-in-human studies were conducted in Germany. In 1991, the first guidelines for indications were established in the USA and Germany. Several randomized studies on indications were published between 1996 and 2009, mostly led by American teams with German participation, but also under German leadership (CASH, CAT, DINAMIT, IRIS). The DANISH study in 2016 questioned the results of these long-standing studies. Instead of providing ICDs to patients using a broad indication, future efforts aim to identify patients who, despite optimal medical therapy, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and/or catheter ablation, need protection against sudden cardiac death. Risk scores incorporating myocardial scars in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and genetic information are expected to contribute to more individualized and effective indications.

Incidence of premature battery depletion in subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator patients: insights from a multicenter registry

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous ICD established its role in the prevention of sudden cardiac death in recent years. The occurrence of premature battery depletion in a large subset of potentially affected devices has been a cause of concern. The incidence of premature battery depletion has not been studied systematically beyond manufacturer-reported data.

METHODS

Retrospective data and the most recent follow-up data on S-ICD devices from fourteen centers in Europe, the US, and Canada was studied. The incidence of generator removal or failure was reported to investigate the incidence of premature S-ICD battery depletion, defined as battery failure within 60 months or less.

RESULTS

Data from 1054 devices was analyzed. Premature battery depletion occurred in 3.5% of potentially affected devices over an observation period of 49 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of premature battery depletion of S-ICD potentially affected by a battery advisory was around 3.5% after 4 years in this study. Premature depletion occurred exclusively in devices under advisory. This is in line with the most recently published reports from the manufacturer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04767516 .

Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Defibrillator Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials and Propensity Score-Matched Studies

Background

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (S‐ICDs) have been of great interest as an alternative to transvenous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (TV‐ICDs). No meta‐analyses synthesizing data from high‐quality studies have yet been published.

Methods and Results

An electronic literature search was conducted to retrieve randomized controlled trials or propensity score–matched studies comparing S‐ICD against TV‐ICD in patients with an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator indication. The primary outcomes were device‐related complications and lead‐related complications. Secondary outcomes were inappropriate shocks, appropriate shock, all‐cause mortality, and infection. All outcomes were pooled under random‐effects meta‐analyses and reported as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. Kaplan–Meier curves of device‐related complications were digitized to retrieve individual patient data and pooled under a 1‐stage meta‐analysis using Cox models to determine hazard ratios (HRs) of patients undergoing S‐ICD versus TV‐ICD. A total of 5 studies (2387 patients) were retrieved. S‐ICD had a similar rate of device‐related complications compared with TV‐ICD (RR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.33–1.04]; P=0.070), but a significantly lower lead‐related complication rate (RR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07–0.29]; P<0.0001). The individual patient data–based 1‐stage stratified Cox model for device‐related complications across 4 studies yielded no significant difference (shared‐frailty HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.61–1.09]; P=0.167), but visual inspection of pooled Kaplan–Meier curves suggested a divergence favoring S‐ICD. Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between both modalities.

Conclusions

S‐ICD is clinically superior to TV‐ICD in terms of lead‐related complications while demonstrating comparable efficacy and safety. For device‐related complications, S‐ICD may be beneficial over TV‐ICD in the long term. These indicate that S‐ICD is likely a suitable substitute for TV‐ICD in patients requiring implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implantation without a pacing indication.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator electrode fracture: Follow-up, troubleshooting, and evaluation

The subcutaneous-implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) and its electrode were developed to avoid long-term complications of transvenous leads in the vasculature. We report a case of unexpected, inappropriate S-ICD shocks due to oversensing of high-amplitude, nonphysiologic, electrical noise artifacts that were not preceded by high-impedance alerts or sensing electrogram noise detections. Following explant, high-magnification X-ray imaging of the S-ICD electrode demonstrated partial fracture of the distal sensing conductor located near a short radius bend in the electrode at the electrode-header interface. Clinicians should be aware of a potential for fatigue failure fracture of the S-ICD electrode. Recommendations for systematic S-ICD follow-up and troubleshooting are discussed.

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.

Outcome differences and device performance of the subcutaneous ICD in patients with and without structural heart disease

BACKGROUND

The performance of the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD™) has been described in different kinds of heart disease and has been proven to be an important advance in prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). While positive experiences with the S-ICD™ initially came from collectives of patients without structural heart diseases, positive results have also been collected from cohorts with structural heart disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All S-ICD™ patients with either ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) as the main indication for ICD implantation (n = 144 patients) or electrical heart disease/idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (n = 83 patients) in our large-scaled single-center S-ICD™ registry were included in this study. Baseline characteristics, appropriate and inappropriate shocks, and complications were documented in a mean follow-up of 18 ± 15 months.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were significantly different between the two groups in most categories. In contrast, there was no difference concerning neither appropriate nor inappropriate shock delivery between the two groups. Also other outcome parameters such as need for surgical revisions and all-cause mortality did not differ. There was a significant difference between the first- and second-generation S-ICDs™ in inadequate shocks mainly driven by patients with HCM.

CONCLUSION

In our study, S-ICD™ performance was similar in patients with and without structural heart disease. Decision pro- or contra-S-ICD™ should be made rather on the basis of expected shock rate and probability of the need for future anti-tachycardia or anti-bradycardia pacing than in dependence of the underlying heart disease.

Feasibility of entirely subcutaneous ICD™ systems in patients with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD™) is an important advance in device therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Although current guidelines recommend S-ICD™ use, long-term data are still limited, especially in subgroups. Among several cardiac diseases that prone to SCD, coronary artery disease (CAD) carries several peculiarities that may hamper S-ICD™ therapy in this cohort. CAD can lead to an ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) with a reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and bundle branch blocks, which can be difficult for ICD sensing and discrimination of arrhythmia. CAD is mainly driven by risk factors such as diabetes mellitus, which put these patients at an elevated risk for infectious complications of cardiac devices. Furthermore, in ICM myocardial scars are frequent and are a potential substrate for ventricular tachycardia, which may be accessible for antitachycardia pacing. At the moment, it remains unclear if there is a value of S-ICD™ therapy in this subgroup. Therefore, this study analysed patients with CAD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All S-ICD™ patients with CAD as the main indication for ICD implantation (n = 45 patients) in our large-scaled single-center S-ICD™ registry (n = 249 patients) were included in this study. Baseline characteristics, appropriate and inappropriate shocks, and complications were documented in a mean follow-up of 22.5 ± 8.3 months.

RESULTS

Primary prevention of SCD was the indication for implantation of an S-ICD™ in 28 patients (62%). Of all 45 patients with an overall mean age of 58.1 ± 11.4 years, 40 were male (88%). The mean LVEF was 37.7 ± 12.6%. Three episodes of ventricular arrhythmia (one monomorphic, one polymorphic, one ventricular fibrillation) were adequately terminated in three patients (7%). In only one patient, oversensing resulting in an inappropriate shock was observed, which could be managed by changing the sensing vector. 15 of the examined 45 patients previously had a transvenous ICD, which was explanted due to system-related infections. In only two patients, S-ICD™ was changed to transvenous ICD because of the need of antibradycardia stimulation. There were no S-ICD™ system-related infections.

CONCLUSION

The S-ICD™ seems to be a valuable option for the prevention of SCD in CAD patients. Patients with systemic infections of a transvenous ICD and, therefore, a need for an alternative might benefit from the absence of intracardiac leads as the S-ICD™ is safe and works flawlessly in these patients. Inadequate shock delivery was very rare, while every episode of ventricular arrhythmia was terminated by the first shock.

Prognostic impact of recurrences of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and appropriate ICD therapies in a high-risk ICD population

PURPOSE

The study sought to evaluate the prognostic impact of recurrences of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in consecutive ICD recipients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias on admission.

METHODS

All consecutive patients surviving at least one episode of ventricular tachyarrhythmias from 2002 to 2016 and discharged with an ICD (pre-existing ICD or ICD implantation at index hospitalization) were included. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality according to the presence or absence of recurrences of ventricular tachyarrhythmias at 5 years. Secondary endpoints comprised the impact of different types of recurrences, appropriate ICD therapies, as well as predictors of recurrences and appropriate ICD therapies. Kaplan-Meier, multivariable Cox regression and propensity score matching analyses were applied.

RESULTS

A total of 592 consecutive ICD recipients was included (44% with recurrences of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and 56% without). Recurrences of ventricular tachyarrhythmias were associated with increased all-cause mortality at 5 years (HR = 1.498; 95% CI = 1.052-2.132; p = 0.025). Worst survival was observed in patients with sustained VT or VF as first recurrences compared to non-sustained VT, as well as in patients with cumulative recurrences of non-sustained or sustained VT plus VF, whereas mortality was not affected by the number of recurrences of ventricular tachyarrhythmias (> 4 vs. ≤ 4). Moreover, appropriate ICD therapies were associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR = 1.874; 95% CI = 1.318-2.666; p = 0.001), mainly attributed to secondary preventive ICDs. Finally, atrial fibrillation, LVEF < 35% and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy were identified as predictors of recurrences of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and appropriate ICD therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrences of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and recurrent appropriate ICD therapies are associated with increased long-term all-cause mortality in consecutive ICD recipients. Non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, AF and LVEF < 35% revealed to be significant predictors of both endpoints.

[Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator : Current status and perspectives]

The use of transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) for the prevention of sudden cardiac death has been proven in numerous randomized trials. By using a totally subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) system, it is expected to ensure appropriate protection while avoiding long-term complications associated with transvenous leads, such as systemic infection and electrode dysfunction. Meanwhile, the safety and effectiveness of the S‑ICD has been substantiated by results of large registry studies. Based on the missing option for ventricular stimulation, corresponding recommendations have been integrated into current guidelines for certain patient populations. In the future, the issue of inadequate shocks caused by oversensing may be solved using advanced screening tools and new detection algorithms. Furthermore, a combination of subcutaneous ICD and LCP (leadless cardiac pacer) seems realistic to enable antibradycardia and antitachycardia ventricular pacing.