Use of an electrocardiographic screening tool to determine candidacy for a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Personalized Screening Before Subcutaneous Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation: Usefulness and Outcomes in Clinical Practice - The S-ICD Screening SIS Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Electrocardiographic (ECG) screening prior to S-ICD implantation is unsuccessful in around 10% of cases. A personalized screening method, by slightly moving the electrodes, to obtain a better R/T ratio has been described to overcome traditional screening failure.

OBJECTIVE

To assess to what extent a personalized screening method improves eligibility for S-ICD implantation and evaluate the inappropriate shock rate after such screening success.

METHODS

All consecutive patients eligible for an S-ICD implantation were prospectively recruited across 20 French centers between December 2019 to January 2022 (NCT04101253). In case of traditional screening failure, patients received a second personalized screening. If at least one vector was positive, the personalized screening was considered as successful, and the patient was eligible for implantation.

RESULTS

474 patients were included in the study (mean age 50.4 ±14.1 years; 77.4% men). Traditional screening was successful in 456 (96.2%) cases. This figure rose to 98.3% (n=466; P=.002) when personalized screening was performed. All patients implanted after successful personalized screening had correct signal detection on initial device interrogation. Nevertheless, after one year follow-up, 3 (43%) of the 7 patients implanted with personalized experienced inappropriate shock (vs 18 (4.2%) out of the 427 patients with traditional screening and S-ICD implantation P=.003).

CONCLUSION

Traditional S-ICD screening was successful in our study in a very high proportion of patients. Considering the small improvement in success of screening and a higher rate of inappropriate shock, a strategy of personalized screening cannot be routinely recommended.

Safety and Performance of the Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Detection Algorithm INSIGHTTM in Pacemaker Patients

BACKGROUND

The use of the S-ICD is limited by its inability to provide backup pacing. Combined use of the S-ICD with a pacemaker may be a good choice in certain situations, yet current experience concerning the compatibility is limited. The goal of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of the S-ICD in patients with a pacemaker.

METHODS

A total of 74 consecutive patients with a bipolar pacemaker were prospectively enrolled. First, surface rhythm strips were recorded in all possible pacemaker stimulation modes, to screen for T-wave oversensing (TWOS). Second, a S-ICD functional dummy was placed epicutaneously on the patient in the typical implant position. The same standardized pacing protocol was used as mentioned above, and every stimulation mode was recorded via S-ECG in all vectors.

RESULTS

In 16 patients (21.6%), programmed stimulation would have led to VT/VF detection. Triggered episodes were due to counting of the pacing spike(s), QRS complex, premature ventricular contractions, and/or additional TWOS. Three cases triggered in the bipolar stimulation mode. Oversensing was associated with lung emphysema and a reduced QRS amplitude in the S-ECG.

CONCLUSION

The combination of an S-ICD and a pacemaker may lead to inadequate shock delivery due to oversensing, even under programmed bipolar stimulation. Oversensing cannot be sufficiently predicted by the screening tool in pacemaker patients. Testing with an epicutaneous S-ICD dummy in all vectors and stimulation settings is recommended in patients with pre-existing pacemakers.

Comparison of Preoperative ECG Screening and Device-Based Vector Analysis in Patients Receiving a Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator

Background and Objectives: Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) provide protection against sudden cardiac death from outside the cardiovascular system. ECG screening is a prerequisite for implantation, but the reproducibility of its results post-operatively in the device is only partial. We aimed to compare the results of ECG screening with device-based sensing vector analysis. Materials and Methods: We screened the hospital records of all S-ICD recipients in our clinic. All of them had pre-operative ECG screening performed (primary, secondary, and alternate vectors). The results were compared with device-based vector analysis to determine the relation of the pre- and post-operative vector availability. Results: Complete ECG screening and device-based vector analysis were obtained for 103 patients. At least two acceptable vectors were found in 97.1% of the patients pre-operatively and in 96.1% post-operatively. When comparing vectors in terms of agreement (OK or FAIL) pre- and post-operatively, in 89.3% of the patients, the result for the primary vector was the same in both situations; for the secondary, it was in 84.5%, and for the alternate, it was in 74.8% of patients, respectively. In 55.3% of patients, all three vectors were labeled the same (OK or FAIL); in 37.9%, two vectors had the same result, and in 6.8%, only one vector had the same result pre- and post-operatively. The number of available vectors was the same pre- and post-operatively in 62.1% of patients, while in 15.5%, it was lower, and in 22.3% of patients, it was higher than observed during screening. Conclusions: Routine clinical pre-operative screening allowed for a good selection of candidates for S-ICD implantation. All patients had at least one vector available post-operatively. The final number of vectors available in the device-based analysis in most patients was at least the same (or higher) than during screening. The repeatability of the positive result for a single vector was high.

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Pediatrics and Congenital Heart Disease

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) are being used with increased frequency in children and patients with congenital heart disease. Vascular access complexities, intracardiac shunts, and specific anatomies make these devices particularly appealing for some of these patients. Alternative screening, implantation, and programming techniques should be considered based on patient size, body habitus, anatomy, procedural history, and preference. Appropriate and inappropriate shock rates are generally comparable to those seen with transvenous devices. Complications such as infection can occur, although their severity is likely to be less than that seen with transvenous devices. Technical advances are likely to further broaden S-ICD applicability.

Inappropriate Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Shocks-A Rare Case of Triple Counting

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) caused by ventricular tachyarrhythmias is a significant contributor to cardiovascular deaths worldwide. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have shown efficacy in preventing and reducing mortality from SCD, but traditional transvenous ICDs have inherent challenges and drawbacks, such as lead fractures, lead-associated endocarditis, and lead failure. To address these issues, subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICDs) have been developed. S-ICDs lack pacing capacity but are a valid alternative for patients at high risk for infection or with difficult venous access. Pre-implantation screening can help prevent inappropriate device shocks. We present a case in which a patient received inappropriate S-ICD therapy, which was attributed to the triple counting of P-, R-, and T-waves in a patient with sinus rhythm. This is an unusual occurrence, and, to the best of our knowledge, there are only a limited number of case reports documenting inappropriate shocks due to the oversensing of P-waves and T-waves.

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.

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator: A Contemporary Overview

The difference between subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) and transvenous ICDs (TV-ICDs) concerns a whole extra thoracic implantation, including a defibrillator coil and pulse generator, without endovascular components. The improved safety profile has allowed the S-ICD to be rapidly taken up, especially among younger patients. Reports of its role in different cardiac diseases at high risk of SCD such as hypertrophic and arrhythmic cardiomyopathies, as well as channelopathies, is increasing. S-ICDs show comparable efficacy, reliability, and safety outcomes compared to TV-ICD. However, some technical issues (i.e., the inability to perform anti-bradycardia pacing) strongly limit the employment of S-ICDs. Therefore, it still remains only an alternative to the traditional ICD thus far. This review aims to provide a contemporary overview of the role of S-ICDs compared to TV-ICDs in clinical practice, including technical aspects regarding device manufacture and implantation techniques. Newer outlooks and future perspectives of S-ICDs are also brought up to date.

Right ventricular function is a predictor for sustained ventricular tachycardia requiring anti-tachycardic pacing in arrhythmogenic ventricular cardiomyopathy: insight into transvenous vs. subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator insertion

AIMS

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) patients develop ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) responsive to anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP). However, VA episodes have not been characterized in accordance with the device therapy, and with the emergence of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD), the appropriate device prescription in ARVC remains unclear. Study aim was to characterize VA events in ARVC patients during follow-up in accordance with device therapy and elicit if certain parameters are predictive of specific VA events.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was a retrospective single-centre study utilizing prospectively collated registry data of ARVC patients with ICDs. Forty-six patients were included [54.0 ± 12.1 years old and 20 (43.5%) secondary prevention devices]. During a follow-up of 12.1 ± 6.9 years, 31 (67.4%) patients had VA events [n = 2, 6.5% ventricular fibrillation (VF), n = 14], 45.2% VT falling in VF zone resulting in ICD shock(s), n = 10, 32.3% VT resulting in ATP, and n = 5, 16.1% patients had both VT resulting in ATP and ICD shock(s). Lead failure rates were high (11/46, 23.9%). ATP was successful in 34.5% of patients. Severely impaired right ventricular (RV) function was an independent predictor of VT resulting in ATP (hazard ratio 16.80, 95% confidence interval 3.74-75.2; P < 0.001) with a high predictive accuracy (area under the curve 0.88, 95%CI 0.76-1.00; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

VA event rates are high in ARVC patients with a majority having VT falling in the VF zone resulting in ICD shock(s). S-ICDs could be of benefit in most patients with ARVC with the absence of severely impaired RV function which has the potential to avoid consequences of the high burden of lead failure.

Correlation analysis of deep learning methods in S-ICD screening

BACKGROUND

Machine learning methods are used in the classification of various cardiovascular diseases through ECG data analysis. The concept of varying subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillator (S-ICD) eligibility, owing to the dynamicity of ECG signals, has been introduced before. There are practical limitations to acquiring longer durations of ECG signals for S-ICD screening. This study explored the potential use of deep learning methods in S-ICD screening.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study. A deep learning tool was used to provide descriptive analysis of the T:R ratios over 24 h recordings of S-ICD vectors. Spearman's rank correlation test was used to compare the results statistically to those of a "gold standard" S-ICD simulator.

RESULTS

A total of 14 patients (mean age: 63.7 ± 5.2 years, 71.4% male) were recruited and 28 vectors were analyzed. Mean T:R, standard deviation of T:R, and favorable ratio time (FVR)-a new concept introduced in this study-for all vectors combined were 0.21 ± 0.11, 0.08 ± 0.04, and 79 ± 30%, respectively. There were statistically significant strong correlations between the outcomes of our novel tool and the S-ICD simulator (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Deep learning methods could provide a practical software solution to analyze data acquired for longer durations than current S-ICD screening practices. This could help select patients better suited for S-ICD therapy as well as guide vector selection in S-ICD eligible patients. Further work is needed before this could be translated into clinical practice.

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.

Two Limitations of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in the Same Patient Warranting Its Explant

BACKGROUND A subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) is preferred over a transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) in selected cases owing to a lower rate of lead-related complications such as infections and venous thrombosis. However, the S-ICD has its own limitations, including inappropriate shocks due to oversensed events, and the inability to treat ventricular tachycardia (VT) below a heart rate of 170 beats per minutes (bpm). We present a patient case which showed manifestations of both of these limitations, warranting explant of the device. CASE REPORT A 50-year-old man with a history of nonischemic cardiomyopathy and VT had a S-ICD placed at an outside facility. However, he continued to have VT despite on anti-arrhythmic drugs and required recurrent S-ICD shocks. Device interrogation showed that he was intermittently receiving appropriate shocks for slower VT (with a heart rate ranging from 150 bpm to 160 bpm) due to oversensing of T waves. However, treatment was delayed for other VT episodes owing to appropriate sensing and the patient's heart rate being below the lowest detection zone for S-ICD. Due to slower VT cycle length and frequent oversensed events, the S-ICD was ultimately replaced by a TV-ICD system. CONCLUSIONS This case report emphasizes the importance of S-ICD pre-implant vector screening and the need for paying attention to VT cycle length to prevent inappropriate device shocks and/or delayed therapies.

Association Between Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Preimplantation Screening and the Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Background and Objectives

Preimplantation QRS-T morphology screening (TMS) is a composite tool for selecting subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) candidates. However, its role in predicting the patient's response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is uncertain.

Methods

A total of 55 consecutive de novo CRT candidates were enrolled between January 2016 and March 2017. Electrocardiogram (ECG) and TMS were performed before and soon after implantation. The ECG parameters were recorded, including QRS duration and morphology (such as ΔQRS_Index, QTc during biventricular pacing mode [BiV pacing QTc], and QRS/T ratio during biventricular pacing mode [BiV pacing QRS/T ratio]). TMS monitored three sensory vectors of the S-ICD. Six months after implantation, the responses to CRT were evaluated.

Results

Thirty-nine patients (70.9%) passed the TMS during biventricular pacing mode. At the six-month follow-up, the number of responders and super-responders was significantly higher in the passing group than in the non-passing group (responders: 31/39 [79.5%] vs. 5/16 [31.3%], p<0.001; super-responders: 9/39 [23.1%] vs. 1/16 [6.3%], p=0.020). The super-response rate was higher among patients who passed all three vectors than among those who passed 1 or 2 vectors (3 vs. 2 vectors, p=0.018; 3 vs. 1 vector, p=0.003). A smaller left atrial diameter, vectors that passed TMS during biventricular pacing mode, and larger ΔQRS_Index values were independently associated with good CRT response.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated that patients on CRT who pass the TMS during biventricular pacing mode are more likely to respond and super-respond to CRT.

A novel screening tool to unmask potential interference between S-ICD and left ventricular assist device

INTRODUCTION

In patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD), the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) can be an alternative to transvenous ICD systems due to reduced risk of systemic infection, which could lead to extraction of the ICD as well as the LVAD. S-ICD eligibility is lower in patients with LVAD than in patients with end-stage heart failure without LVAD. Several reports have shown inappropriate S-ICD therapy in the coexistence of LVAD and S-ICD. The aim of the present study was to evaluate S-ICD eligibility in patients with LVAD using the established electrocardiogram (ECG)-based screening test as well as a novel device-based screening test to identify potentially inappropriate S-ICD sensing in this specific patient cohort.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The present study included 115 patients implanted with an LVAD. The standard ECG-based screening test and a novel device-based screening test were performed in all patients. Eighty patients (70%) were eligible for S-ICD therapy with the standard ECG-based screening test. Performance of the novel device-based screening test identified device-device interference in 14 of these 80 patients (12%).

CONCLUSION

Using a novel extended device-based S-ICD screening method, a small number of patients with LVAD deemed eligible for S-ICD with the standard ECG-based screening test exhibit device-device interference. Careful S-ICD screening should be performed in patients with LVAD, who are candidates for S-ICD therapy, to prevent inappropriate sensing or ICD therapy.

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

Previous study has identified marked differences in patient characteristics and causes of inappropriate shock (IAS) between Japan and the Western societies in terms of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD). However, evidence of IAS in Asian populations including Japan has been limited to one observational study.Thus, we conducted a single-center registry study that tracks the postoperative course of 61 consecutive patients who received S-ICD from February 2016 to January 2020. Our findings showed that IAS occurred in 9.8% of the study population (6/61), which is comparable to the previously reported incidence. Remarkably, T-wave oversensing did not result in an IAS (0/6). Instead, myopotential oversensing was determined to have caused the most IAS events (4/6), while atrial fibrillation ranked second (2/6). A provocation maneuver (e.g., abdominal clench, push-ups, lifting a heavy item) reproduced myopotential noise disguised as R-waves, which should potentially trigger an IAS if uninterrupted. R-wave amplitude of the IAS group appeared relatively low compared to that of the non-IAS group although this finding was not tested significant. Furthermore, no temporal changes were noted in R-wave amplitude between the time of implantation and IAS events, suggesting that it is neither constantly low nor acutely dropped R-wave amplitude but a relatively high noise level that drives IAS. All the myopotential-IAS patients were found to be male. Right-sided lead implantation was associated with a higher incidence of IAS.This study highlights the fact that IAS continues to occur due to myopotential noise oversensing instead of T-wave oversensing. To minimize the risk of IAS, it is desirable to search and secure high R-wave voltage.

Eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with left ventricular assist device

Purpose

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) could be a promising alternative to the conventional transvenous ICD in patients with LVAD due to its reduced risk of infection. However, surface ECG is altered following LVAD implantation and, since S-ICD detection is based on surface ECG, S-ICD could be potentially affected. The aim of the present study was to analyze S-ICD eligibility in patients with LVAD.

Methods

Seventy-five patients implanted with an LVAD were included in this prospective single-center study. The ECG-based screening test and the automated screening test were performed in all patients.

Results

Fifty-five (73.3%) patients had either a positive ECG-based or automated screening test. Out of these, 28 (37.3%) patients were found eligible for S-ICD implantation with both screening tests performed. ECG-based screening test was positive in 50 (66.6%) patients; automated screening test was positive in 33 (44.0%) patients. Three ECG-based screening tests could not be evaluated due to artifacts. With the automated screening test, in 9 (12.0%) patients, the test yielded no result.

Conclusions

Patients implanted with an LVAD showed lower S-ICD eligibility rates compared with patients without LVAD. With an S-ICD eligibility rate of maximal 73.3%, S-ICD therapy may be a feasible option in these patients. Nevertheless, S-ICD implantation should be carefully weighed against potential device-device interference. Prospective studies regarding S-ICD eligibility before and after LVAD implantation are required to further elucidate the role of S-ICD therapy in this population.

Sudden Cardiac Death in Children Affected by Cardiomyopathies: An Update on Risk Factors and Indications at Transvenous or Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillators

In the present paper, we will discuss the main cardiomyopathies affecting children with a specific focus on risk stratification and prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). We will discuss the main clinical features of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), dilated and restrictive cardiomyopathies, left ventricular non-compaction (LVNC) and arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (AC), always highlighting their peculiarities in the pediatric age. Since sudden cardiac death may be the first manifestation of the disease, even in children, the identification of the specific underlying condition and of risk factors are pivotal to carry out the appropriate preventing strategies. ICD recommendations in children are similar to adults, but supporting evidences are not so solid, being based on registries or single center studies. Furthermore, children and young patients are most likely to manifest long term complications related to an implanted ICD, and this should be taken into account when evaluating the risk benefit ratio. In this perspective, subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICDs) could carry an advantage; however, they cannot be considered in small children for technical reasons. Data on effectiveness and safety of S-ICDs in a pediatric population is still lacking, although some limited experiences are reported and will be discussed in the current review.

Impact of routine right parasternal electrocardiographic screening in assessing eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

INTRODUCTION

Between 7% and 15% of patients with an indication for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) are not eligible for implantation of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) on the basis of the result of the conventional left parasternal electrocardiographic screening (LPES). Our objective was to determine the impact of systematically performing right parasternal electrocardiographic screening (RPES) in addition to conventional LPES, in terms of increasing both the total percentage of potentially eligible patients for S-ICD implantation and the number of suitable vectors per patient.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients from the outpatient device clinic who already had an implanted ICD, and no requirement for pacing were enrolled. Conventional left parasternal electrode position and right parasternal electrode positions were used. The automatic screening tool was used to analyze the recordings. Screenings were performed in the supine and standing positions. Overall, 209 patients were included. The mean age was 63.4 ± 13 years, 59.8% had ischemic heart disease, mean QRS duration was 100 ± 31 ms, and 69.9% had a primary prevention ICD indication. Based on conventional isolated LPES, 12.9% of patients were not eligible for S-ICD compared with 11.5% based on RPES alone (P = .664). Considering LPES and RPES together, only 7.2% of patients were not eligible for S-ICD (P < .001). Moreover, the number of patients with more than one suitable vector increased from 66.5% with isolated LPES to 82.3% (23.7% absolute increase [P < .001]).

CONCLUSION

Adding an automated RPES to the conventional automated LPES increased patient eligibility for the S-ICD significantly. Moreover, combined screening increased the number of suitable vectors per eligible patient.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approach to Arrhythmias in Adult Congenital Heart Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Adult survivors of congenital heart disease (CHD) are at increased risk of arrhythmia. The goal of this review is to outline diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to arrhythmia in adult CHD patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Macro-reentrant atrial tachyarrhythmia is the most common arrhythmia encountered in adults with CHD. Approximately 25% of hospitalizations associated with arrhythmia. The risk of ventricular arrhythmia is estimated as high as 25-100 times that for the general population and increased after two decades. Routine ambulatory monitoring is important for arrhythmia risk assessment in adults with CHD. There are limitations, potential adverse effects, and risk of recurrence with antiarrhythmic drugs, catheter ablation, and surgical approaches. Adults with CHD suffer various forms of arrhythmia, are at increased risk of sudden death, and require special consideration for medical and interventional therapy.

Evolution of extravascular implantable defibrillator technologies

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been successfully treating patients with lethal ventricular arrhythmias for decades. The main acute and chronic complications of this therapy modality are related to the use of a transvenous lead. An entirely extravascular ICD concept was developed over the last 20 years, with emergence of the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD). This device was approved for clinical use seven years ago, and accumulating real-life experience confirms its safety and efficacy. The main limitations related to this system include the lack of pacing capabilities for bradycardia, tachycardia or resynchronization therapy, a large size, and relatively high energy requirements for effective defibrillation. This review article summarizes current knowledge and potential future developments of the extravascular ICD technologies.

Spotlight on S-ICD™ therapy: 10 years of clinical experience and innovation

Subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD™) therapy has been established in initial clinical trials and current international guideline recommendations for patients without demand for pacing, cardiac resynchronization, or antitachycardia pacing. The promising experience in ‘ideal’ S-ICD™ candidates increasingly encourages physicians to provide the benefits of S-ICD™ therapy to patients in clinical constellations beyond ‘classical’ indications of S-ICD™ therapy, which has led to a broadening of S-ICD™ indications in many centres. However, the decision for S-ICD™ implantation is still not covered by controlled randomized trials but rather relies on patient series or observational studies. Thus, this review intends to give a contemporary update on available empirical evidence data and technical advancements of S-ICD™ technology and sheds a spotlight on S-ICD™ therapy in recently discovered fields of indication beyond ideal preconditions. We discuss the eligibility for S-ICD™ therapy in Brugada syndrome as an example for an adverse and dynamic electrocardiographic pattern that challenges the S-ICD™ sensing and detection algorithms. Besides, the S-ICD™ performance and defibrillation efficacy in conditions of adverse structural remodelling as exemplified for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is discussed. In addition, we review recent data on potential device interactions between S-ICD™ systems and other implantable cardio-active systems (e.g. pacemakers) including specific recommendations, how these could be prevented. Finally, we evaluate limitations of S-ICD™ therapy in adverse patient constitutions, like distinct obesity, and present contemporary strategies to assure proper S-ICD™ performance in these patients. Overall, the S-ICD™ performance is promising even for many patients, who may not be ‘classical’ candidates for this technology.

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: An Overview of Implantation Techniques and Clinical Outcomes

Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD) is a significant health problem worldwide. Multiple randomized controlled trials have shown that Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICDs) are effective life-saving management option for individuals at risk of SCD in both primary and secondary prevention. Although the conventional transvenous ICDs (TV-ICDs) are safe and effective, there are potential complications associated with its use, including localized pocket or wound infection or systematic infection, a vascular access related complication such as pneumothorax, and venous thrombosis, and lead related complications such as dislodgement, malfunction, and perforation. Furthermore, transvenous leads placement may not be feasible in certain patients like those with venous anomaly or occlusion, or with the presence of intracardiac shunts. Transvenous leads extraction, when needed, is associated with considerable morbidity & mortality and requires significant skills and costs. Totally subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is designed to afford the same life-saving benefit of the conventional TV-ICDs while avoiding the shortcomings of the TV-leads and to simplify the implant techniques and hence expand the use of ICDs in clinical practice. It becomes commercially available after receiving CE mark in 2009, and its use increased significantly after its FDA approval in 2012. This review aims to give an overview of the S-ICD system components, implantation procedure, clinical indications, safety, efficacy, and future directions.

Effect of diurnal variations in the QRS complex and T waves on the eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) are an established therapy for preventing sudden cardiac death. However, a considerable number of patients still undergo inappropriate shocks even after conventional preimplantation electrocardiographic (ECG) screening.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to elucidate the additional effect of diurnal variations in the QRS complex and T waves of 24-hour Holter screening on S-ICD eligibility.

METHODS

Patients with transvenous ICDs who did not need pacing were selected for the study. The ECG was recorded by placing the electrodes to simulate the 3 sensing vectors of the S-ICD, with the patient in the standing and supine positions (conventional), during exercise, and during 24-hour Holter screening. We investigated the additional discrimination of diurnal variations in patients ineligible for S-ICDs as well as characteristics of those patients.

RESULTS

Of the 86 patients (82% men; mean age 54±16 years) analyzed by all 3 screenings, 2 (2.3%) and 3 (3.4%) were considered ineligible by conventional and exercise screening, respectively. An additional 21 patients (24.4%) were found ineligible through Holter screening. A multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that Brugada syndrome and an increased QRS duration per millisecond were associated with ineligibility (odds ratio 5.74; 95% confidence interval 1.74-20.2; P = .003 and odds ratio 1.04; 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.07; P = .007, respectively). T-wave oversensing was mostly observed during 0-6 AM, but no significant diurnal variations were observed in the incorrect QRS profiles.

CONCLUSION

The detection of diurnal variations through Holter monitoring in addition to conventional screening is expected to be useful for determining S-ICD eligibility.

Electrocardiographic changes after implantation of a left ventricular assist device - Potential implications for subcutaneous defibrillator therapy

BACKGROUND

Implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) leads to a diverse spectrum of changes on the twelve-lead surface electrocardiogram (ECG). We aimed to elucidate the changes of the surface ECG in patients after LVAD implantation potentially impacting ECG based screening tests of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICD).

METHODS

Patients from 2005 until 2017 with a documented twelve-lead ECG before and after LVAD implantation were included. Baseline parameters were obtained through hospital records. The twelve-lead ECGs registered before and after LVAD implantation were analyzed.

RESULTS

From 415 patients undergoing an LVAD implantation, complete datasets were available for 253 patients. 216 patients (85%) were male. Mean age at time of LVAD implantation was 54.7 ± 12.4 years. The underlying etiology was ischemic cardiomyopathy in 119 (47%), dilated cardiomyopathy in 112 (44%), myocarditis in 8 (3%) and other in 14 (6%). We observed a reduction in the amplitude of the R wave in lead I (p < 0.0001), lead II (p < 0.0001), lead III (p < 0.004), lead aVL (p < 0.001) and lead aVF (p < 0.0001) as well as of the S wave in lead III (p < 0.001) and lead aVR (p < 0.0001) after LVAD implantation. We also noticed a reduction of the R:T ratio in lead I (p < 0.0001) as well as in lead II (p = 0.100) and lead aVF (p = 0.292) although statistically non-significant.

CONCLUSION

LVAD implantation leads to significant alterations of the surface ECG, especially the R:T ratio in leads I, II and aVF. These leads correlate with the vectors of the ECG based S-ICD screening test. Thus, these ECG changes may impact the continuous eligibility for subcutaneous ICD therapy in patients after LVAD implantation.

Candidacy for a Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Patients with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

In patients requiring an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), the combined use of a prior pacemaker and a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) could be an alternative treatment option to implantation of new leads or upgrading of pacemakers to an ICD if vascular access is limited. Here, we assessed the prevalence of S-ICD's eligibility according to surface electrogram screening in those receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). S-ICD's eligibility was assessed in patients with a CRT pacemaker or a CRT defibrillator using the S-ICD template screening tool. Eligibility was defined as fulfillment of the template in both supine and upright positions in one or more leads during biventricular pacing. Among 44 patients (34 men, age: 67 ± 12), 36 (82%) were found to be eligible. The T/QRS amplitude ratio in lead II was significantly lower in those who were eligible (0.31 ± 0.16 versus 0.44 ± 0.18 in the ineligible group, P = 0.04). The lead position, underlying disease, and other electrocardiographic findings were not different between those who were eligible and those who were not. The majority of patients with biventricular pacing were eligible for S-ICD based on current screening tests and may benefit from this treatment. Further study is required.

Eligibility of cardiac resynchronization therapy patients for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Before subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation, the adequacy of sensing is required to be verified through surface ECG screening. Our objective was to determine whether S-ICD can be considered as a supplementary therapy in patients who are receiving biventricular (BIV) pacing.

METHODS

We evaluated 48 patients with BIV devices to determine S-ICD candidacy during BIV, left ventricular (LV), right ventricular (RV) pacing, and intrinsic conduction (left bundle branch block-LBBB) by using an automated screening tool. Eligibility was defined by the presence of at least one appropriate vector in the supine and standing positions.

RESULTS

Eligibility was verified during BIV pacing in 34 (71%) patients. In patients screened-out, QRS duration was longer (p = 0.035) and ischemic cardiomyopathy was more frequent (p = 0.027). LV-only pacing was associated with a lower passing rate (46%) (p < 0.001 versus BIV). The LBBB QRS morphology during inhibited ventricular pacing was acceptable in 51% of patients. The QRS generated by RV pacing was acceptable in 25% of patients. In patients who passed the screening test during BIV, the QRS was not acceptable in 76% during RV pacing (i.e., accidental loss of LV capture). The concomitant adequacy during inhibited ventricular pacing (i.e., possible intrinsic conduction) was not assessed in 40% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

S-ICD may be a supplemental therapy in the majority of CRT patients. Standard BIV pacing should be preferred to the LV-only pacing mode, as it is more frequently associated with adequacy of S-ICD sensing. Spontaneous LBBB and RV-paced QRS morphologies are frequently inadequate. Therefore, in patients selected for concomitant S-ICD and CRT implantation, accidental loss of LV capture or possible intrinsic conduction must be prevented.

Evaluation of a novel automatic screening tool for determining eligibility for a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

BACKGROUND

The manufacturer has developed a new ECG screening tool to determine eligibility for the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), the "automatic screening tool" (AST), which may render manual ECG-screening unnecessary. The aim of the study was to determine the eligibility for the S-ICD using two methods (manual ECG-screening versus AST) in different patient categories including patients with cardiomyopathy, congenital heart disease and inherited primary arrhythmia syndrome.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the ECG suitability for an S-ICD in consecutive patients at our outpatient clinic between February and June 2017. The primary endpoint of the study was ECG eligibility defined as at least 1 successful vector in both supine and sitting postures.

RESULTS

A total of 254 patients (167 men; mean age 45 ± 16 years) were screened using both methods. Overall, there was a high ECG eligibility using either method (93% versus 92%, P = 0.45). Overall agreement between both methods was 94%. Patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) more often had a failed screening test using either test in comparison to the patients without HCM (manual: odds ratio [OR] 3.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-9.3, P = 0.02; AST: OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.2-7.6, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

AST showed a high agreement with manual ECG-screening for S-ICD. Overall there was a high ECG eligibility for S-ICD, although patients with HCM had a lower passing rate irrespective of the screening method.

Change of sensing vector in the subcutaneous ICD during follow-up and after device replacement

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) has been established as a valuable alternative to transvenous ICD for prevention of sudden cardiac death. The system automatically chooses the optimal sensing vector. However, during follow-up and especially after device replacement we observed a change of the suggested sensing vector in automatic setup. Therefore, we analyzed frequency and reasons of vector change and its impact on inappropriate shocks (IAS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between June 2010 and December 2017, a total of 216 patients with S-ICD^® were included in this analysis. In all patients sensing vectors at the time of implantation, during follow-up, and after device replacement were investigated. Median follow-up time was 27.3 ± 25.3 months.

RESULTS

A change of the initial vector was seen in 77 patients (35.7%). The most frequent reason for vector change was the postoperative setup in supine and erect position in 54 patients (70.1%). In 12 patients (15.5%), the vector was manually changed due to inappropriate sensing and/or therapies. Routine setup during follow-up led to automatic vector change in 10 cases (13.0%). In only 1 patient the vector was manually changed due to oversensing in an exercise treadmill test. In 27 patients, the device was replaced due to battery depletion and in 6 of these patients the sensing vector was changed by the automatic setup. Vector change did not have an impact for inappropriate therapies in the follow-up; only 1 patient received an IAS due to an inadvertent vector change after device replacement.

CONCLUSION

In the present study, a significant number of S-ICD^® patients had a manual or automatic vector change during follow-up and after device replacement. The study underlines the importance of a thoroughly performed screening and at least two valuable sensing vectors preimplant. Further studies are needed to evaluate the necessity of a routine automatic setup during follow-up.

The utility of routine clinical 12-lead ECG in assessing eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator

INTRODUCTION

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is a life-saving device. Recording of a specialized 3-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) is required for S-ICD eligibility assessment. The goals of this study were: (1) evaluate the effect of ECG filtering on S-ICD eligibility, and (2) simplify S-ICD eligibility assessment by development of an S-ICD ineligibility prediction tool, which utilizes the widely available routine 12-lead ECG.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Prospective cross-sectional study participants [n = 68; 54% male; 94% white, with wide ranges of age (18-81 y), body mass index (19-53), QRS duration (66-150 ms), and left ventricular ejection fraction (37-77%)] underwent 12-lead supine, 3-lead supine and standing ECG recording. All 3-lead ECG recordings were assessed using the standard S-ICD pre-implantation ECG morphology screening. Backward, stepwise, logistic regression was used to build a model for 12-lead prediction of S-ICD eligibility. Select electrocardiogram waves and complexes: QRS, R-, S, and T-amplitudes on all 12 leads, averaged QT interval, QRS duration, and R/T ratio in the lead with the largest T wave (R/T_max) were included as predictors. The effect of ECG filtering on ECG morphology was evaluated. A total of 9 participants (13%) failed S-ICD screening prior to filtering. Filtering at 3-40 Hz, similar to the S-ICD default, reduced S-ICD ineligibility to 4%. A regression model that included R_II, S_II-aVL, T_{I, II, aVL, aVF, V3-V6}, and R/T_max perfectly predicted S-ICD eligibility, with an Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve of 1.0.

CONCLUSION

Routine clinical 12-lead ECG can be used to predict S-ICD eligibility. ECG filtering may improve S-ICD eligibility.

Subcutaneous ICD screening with the Boston Scientific ZOOM programmer versus a 12-lead ECG machine

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) requires preimplant screening to ensure appropriate sensing and reduce risk of inappropriate shocks. Screening can be performed using either an ICD programmer or a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) machine. It is unclear whether differences in signal filtering and digital sampling change the screening success rate.

METHODS

Subjects were recruited if they had a transvenous single-lead ICD without pacing requirements or were candidates for a new ICD. Screening was performed using both a Boston Scientific ZOOM programmer (Marlborough, MA, USA) and General Electric MAC 5000 ECG machine (Fairfield, CT, USA). A pass was defined as having at least one lead that fit within the screening template in both supine and sitting positions.

RESULTS

A total of 69 subjects were included and 27 sets of ECG leads had differing screening results between the two machines (7%). Of these sets, 22 (81%) passed using the ECG machine but failed using the programmer and five (19%) passed using the ECG machine but failed using the programmer (P < 0.001). Four subjects (6%) passed screening using the ECG machine but failed using the programmer. No subject passed screening with the programmer but failed with the ECG machine.

CONCLUSION

There can be occasional disagreement in S-ICD patient screening between an ICD programmer and ECG machine, all of whom passed with the ECG machine but failed using the programmer. On a per lead basis, the ECG machine passes more subjects. It is unknown what the inappropriate shock rate would be if an S-ICD was implanted. Clinical judgment should be used in borderline cases.

Safety, Efficacy and Evidence Base for Use of the Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

The trans-venous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) is effective in treating life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia and reduces mortality in high-risk patients. However, there are significant short- and long-term complications that are associated with intravascular leads. These shortcomings are mostly relevant in young patients with long life expectancy and low risk of death from non-arrhythmic causes. Drawbacks of trans-venous leads recently led to the development of the entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD). The S-ICD does not require vascular access or permanent intravascular defibrillation leads. Therefore, it is expected to overcome many complications associated with conventional ICDs. This review highlights data on safety and efficacy of the S-ICD and is envisioned to help in identifying the role of this device in clinical practice.

Optimal Strategies for Mitigating Sudden Cardiac Death Risk in At-risk Patients with Structural Heart Disease

This article reviews the strategies used to mitigate sudden death risks in at-risk patients with structural heart disease. The roles of implantable and non-implantable technologies to prevent arrhythmic death are discussed.

Predictors of electrocardiographic screening failure for the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in children: A prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (SICD) shows promise for select patients at risk of sudden cardiac death. However, patients need to pass an electrocardiographic (ECG) screening (ECG-S) test before they can receive an SICD. Predictors of ECG-S failure in children are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify the incidence and predictive factors for failure of ECG-S in children.

METHODS

Patients 18 years and younger with a preexisting ICD underwent ECG-S for SICD. ECG and demographic data were analyzed for factors predictive of failure.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients (mean age 14.2 ± 3.3 years; range 5-18 years) with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (n = 24, 33%), long QT syndrome (n =18, 25%), other inherited arrhythmia syndromes (n = 20, 27%), congenital heart disease (n = 9, 12%), and miscellaneous conditions (n = 2) with an existing transvenous ICD underwent prospective ECG-S. Nineteen (26%) failed ECG-S. Failed patients had a longer corrected QT (QTc) interval (457 ms vs 425 ms; P = .03), a longer QRS duration (120 ms vs 98 ms; P = .04), and a lower ratio of R-wave to T-wave amplitudes (R:T ratio) in lead aVF (4 vs 5; P = .001). Multivariable logistic regression identified QTc interval (odds ratio [OR] 4.31; P = .04), QRS duration (OR 4.93; P = .03), R:T ratio in lead aVF (OR 3.13; P = .08) as predictors of failure. A risk score with 1 point each for QTc interval >440 ms, QRS duration >120 ms, and R:T ratio <6.5 in lead aVF was associated with probability of failure of 15.4% (1 point), 47.4% (2 points), and 88.6% (3 points), respectively.

CONCLUSION

ECG-S failure for SICD occurred in 26% of children, which is higher than the reported incidence in adults. Factors predicting ECG-S failure included longer QTc interval, longer QRS duration, and lower R:T ratio in lead aVF.

Right versus left parasternal electrode position in the entirely subcutaneous ICD

OBJECTIVES

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD^®) has been established as an alternative to conventional transvenous ICD for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Initial studies have shown safety and efficacy of the system with a left parasternal (LP) electrode. However, several case studies reported a right parasternal (RP) position. The purpose of this study was to analyze shock efficacy and safety of an RP electrode position.

METHODS

Between June 2010 and May 2016, 120 S-ICD^® were implanted at our institution. On the basis of the heart location on preoperative chest radiography (CXR), the investigators decided on an RP (n = 52) or LP electrode position (n = 68). All perioperative induced VF episodes, and spontaneous appropriate and inappropriate episodes during follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients with an RP electrode did not differ in terms of age, sex, or ejection fraction. A statistically significant difference in underlying cardiac disease was observed between the RP and LP electrode group, with more patients with channelopathies in the RP electrode group and more patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy in the LP electrode group. During a mean follow-up of 24.3 ± 19.5 months, 27 appropriate (19 in the LP group and 8 in the RP group) and 28 inappropriate (18 LP and 10 RP) ICD shocks occurred (p value = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, an RP electrode position was chosen on the basis of chest radiographic characteristics and was efficient in terms of sensing and shock efficacy. Thus, a right-sided electrode implant might be an alternative if a left-sided electrode implant is inadequate. It might also be favorable for young patients with narrow heart silhouettes in the midsagittal position.