Feasibility and safety of same day subcutaneous defibrillator implantation and send home (DASH) strategy

Device-specific quality of life: results from the ATLAS trial-avoid transvenous leads in appropriate subjects

AIMS

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide important insights into patients' acceptance of their medical devices. Avoid Transvenous Leads in Appropriate Subjects (ATLAS), a randomized, multi-centre, open-label clinical trial, recently reported fewer perioperative complications in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) compared with transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) patients. This study reports PROs, including device-specific and generic quality of life (QOL), from the ATLAS trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Device-specific QOL was the primary PRO using the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS) at 1 and 6 months' post-implantation. Secondary outcomes included generic QOL using the Medical Outcomes Survey (SF-36) pre-implant and 6 months' post-implantation. The FPAS and SF-36 were analysed using analysis of covariance. Pain measured using a Numeric Rating Scale, at 1 and 6 months, anaesthetic, body mass index, and within/between differences were analysed using descriptive statistics and mixed-effects linear models. Of the 503 patients randomized in ATLAS, 404 had complete FPAS data to be included in this analysis. Participant characteristics were balanced. There were no significant differences between S-ICD and TV-ICD for the FPAS or SF-36, across time points. Mean total FPAS scores increased from 73.73 (16.09) to 77.05 (16.13) and 74.43 (15.35) to 78.25 (15.88) for S-ICD and TV-ICD, respectively (P < 0.001). Patient-reported outcomes suggested that both devices were associated with good QOL.

CONCLUSION

Device-specific and generic QOL were similar between S-ICD and TV-ICD groups up to 6 months' post-implantation, indicating that regardless of device type, both groups reported good device-specific QOL in ATLAS patients. Subcutaneous ICD patients reported higher pain scores at implant, but pain decreased by 6 months. The findings offer evidence that can be included during shared decision-making. The inclusion of patient partners in ATLAS provided an opportunity to measure PROs that were deemed important to patients.

REGISTRATION

ClinialTrials.gov: NCT02881255.

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.

Real-world evidence for the use of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in China: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) have been shown to be non-inferior to transvenous ICDs in the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD), but there is still a lack of evidence from clinical trials in China. We investigated whether S‑ICD implantation in the Chinese population is safe and feasible and should be promoted in the future.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing S‑ICD implantation at our center were enrolled in this retrospective study. Data were collected within the median follow-up period of 554 days. Data concerning patient selection, implantation procedures, complications, and episodes of shock were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 70.2% of all 47 patients (median age = 39 years) were included for secondary prevention of SCD with different etiologies. Vector screening showed that 98% of patients were with > 1 appropriate vector in all postures. An intraoperative defibrillation test was not performed on six patients because of the high risk of disease deterioration, while all episodes of ventricular fibrillation induced post implantation were terminated by one shock. As expected, no severe complications (e.g., infection and device-related complications) were observed, except for one case of delayed healing of the incision. Overall, 15 patients (31.9%) experienced appropriate shocks (AS) with all episodes terminated by one shock. Two patients (4.3%) experienced inappropriate shocks (IAS) due to noise oversensing, resulting in a high Kaplan-Meier IAS-free rate of 95.7%.

CONCLUSION

Based on appropriate patient selection and standardized implantation procedures, this real-world study confirmed the safety and efficacy of S‑ICD in Chinese patients, indicating that it may help to promote the prevention of SCD in China.

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

Background

PRAETORIAN is the first randomized controlled trial that demonstrated the noninferiority of subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) in comparison with transvenous ICD (TV-ICD). We retrospectively reviewed electronic records of patients with ICD implanted over the past 6 years, with the primary objective to compare our real-world single tertiary center experience with the randomized data from the PRAETORIAN study.

Methods

Seventy S-ICD patients were compared with 197 TV-ICD patients, from July 2014 to June 2020 retrospectively, over a median period of 1304 days (296-2451 days). Primary composite endpoints included inappropriate shocks and device-related malfunctions.

Results

Patients with S-ICD implantation were younger than those who received TV-ICD (mean, 49.7 years vs 63.9 years, p < .001). About 31.4% of S-ICDs were implanted for secondary prevention, and 58.6% of S-ICD patients had ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) with a median left ventricular ejection fraction of 32.5% (range: 10-67%). S-ICDs and TV-ICD had statistically similar inappropriate shocks (4.3% vs 4.6%, p = .78), device-related complications (11.4% vs 9.1%, p = .93), and the overall primary endpoints (15.7% vs 13.7%, p = .68). The findings remained the same even after age and gender adjustments and time-dependent analysis.

Conclusion

Although single-center experience with a small number of S-ICD patients, results of the PRAETORIAN study has been replicated in our real-world experience of S-ICD and TV-ICD implantations across diverse etiologies, indications, and age groups confirming the comparable performance of S-ICD and TV-ICD when implanted in selected patients.

The Subcutaneous ICD: A Review of the UNTOUCHED and PRAETORIAN Trials

The ICD is an important part of the treatment and prevention of sudden cardiac death in many high-risk populations. Traditional transvenous ICDs (TV-ICDs) are associated with certain short- and long- term risks. The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) was developed in order to avoid these risks and complications. However, this system is associated with its own set of limitations and complications. First, patient selection is important, as S-ICDs do not provide pacing therapy currently. Second, pre-procedural screening is important to minimise T wave and myopotential oversensing. Finally, until recently, the S-ICD was primarily used in younger patients with fewer co-morbidities and less structural heart disease, limiting the general applicability of the device. S-ICDs achieve excellent rates of arrhythmia conversion and have demonstrated noninferiority to TV-ICDs in terms of complication rates in real-world studies. The objective of this review is to discuss the latest literature, including the UNTOUCHED and PRAETORIAN trials, and to address the risk of inappropriate shocks.