No benefit from defibrillation threshold testing in the SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial)

Ten years of subcutaneous defibrillator therapy: Consolidated clinical evidence and future perspectives

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) was developed as an alternative to the traditional transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD), aiming to provide easier implantation, simplified detection algorithm of malignant ventricular arrhythmias and prevention from placing components in the cardiovascular system. The S-ICD is implanted subcutaneously or intramuscularly with the generator placed in the left midaxillary line and the lead tunneled subcutaneously in the left para-sternal region. Preimplant electrocardiogram screening is recommended to prevent implantation in patients at high risk of T wave over-sensing. Currently, the S-ICD is unsuitable for patients requiring pacing or cardiac resynchronization. Since the beginning, the S-ICD underwent extensive preclinical investigation until the first prospective multicentre trial demonstrating high efficacy and safety led to market release. While earlier studies focused on younger patients with higher ejection fraction, more recent studies showed favorable outcomes even in patients with comorbidities similar to those typically observed in patients receiving TV-ICD. The development of second and third generation devices has contributed to reduce inappropriate shocks and overcome previous limitations. The aim of this paper is to review the evidence in the literature over the past decade supporting S-ICD as a valid alternative to TV-ICD in terms of safety and efficacy, highlighting the improvements in technology, as well as outcomes.

Postapproval Study of a Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator System

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) was developed to avoid complications related to transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) leads. Device safety and efficacy were demonstrated previously with atypical clinical patients or limited follow-up.

OBJECTIVES

The S-ICD PAS (Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator System Post Approval Study) is a real-world, multicenter, registry of U.S. centers that was designed to assess long-term S-ICD safety and efficacy in a diverse group of patients and implantation centers.

METHODS

Patients were enrolled in 86 U.S. centers with standard S-ICD indications and were observed for up to 5 years. Efficacy endpoints were first and final shock efficacy. Safety endpoints were complications directly related to the S-ICD system or implantation procedure. Endpoints were assessed using prespecified performance goals.

RESULTS

A total of 1,643 patients were prospectively enrolled, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years. All prespecified safety and efficacy endpoint goals were met. Shock efficacy rates for discrete episodes of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation were 98.4%, and they did not differ significantly across follow-up years (P = 0.68). S-ICD-related and electrode-related complication-free rates were 93.4% and 99.3%, respectively. Only 1.6% of patients had their devices replaced by a TV-ICD for a pacing need. Cumulative all-cause mortality was 21.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

In the largest prospective study of the S-ICD to date, all study endpoints were met, despite a cohort with more comorbidities than in most previous trials. Complication rates were low and shock efficacy was high. These results demonstrate the 5-year S-ICD safety and efficacy for a large, diverse cohort of S-ICD recipients. (Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator [S-ICD] System Post Approval Study [PAS]; NCT01736618).

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.

The development of the extravascular defibrillator with substernal lead placement: A new Frontier for device-based treatment of sudden cardiac arrest

INTRODUCTION

The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillato (EV ICD) system with substernal lead placement is a novel nontransvenous alternative to current commercially available ICD systems. The EV ICD provides defibrillation and pacing therapies without the potential long-term complications of endovascular lead placement but requires a new procedure for implantation with a safety profile under evaluation.

METHODS

This paper summarizes the development of the EV ICD, including the preclinical and clinical evaluations that have contributed to the system and procedural refinements to date.

RESULTS

Extensive preclinical research evaluations and four human clinical studies with >140 combined acute and chronic implants have enabled the development and refinement of the EV ICD system, currently in worldwide pivotal study.

CONCLUSION

The EV ICD may represent a clinically valuable solution in protecting patients from sudden cardiac death while avoiding the long-term consequences of transvenous hardware. The EV ICD offers advantages over transvenous and subcutaneous systems by avoiding placement in the heart and vasculature; relative to subcutaneous systems, EV ICD requires less energy for defibrillation, enabling a smaller device, and provides pacing features such as antitachycardia and asystole pacing in a single system.

Trends in Use of Single- vs Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Among Patients Without a Pacing Indication, 2010-2018

IMPORTANCE

Use of dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) systems among patients without a pacing indication is an example of low-value care given higher procedural risks, higher costs, and little evidence for benefit from an atrial lead. However, variation in the use of dual-chamber systems was present among patients without a pacing indication.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the temporal trends and hospital variation in use of single- and dual-chamber ICD implantation among patients without a pacing indication undergoing first-time ICD implantation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted using the US National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. A total of 266 182 patients undergoing initial implantation of a single- or dual-chamber transvenous ICD without a bradycardia pacing indication, class I or II cardiac resynchronization therapy indication, or history of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter were included. The study was conducted from April 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018; data analysis was performed from October 19, 2020, to January 5, 2022.

EXPOSURES

Implantation of a single- or dual-chamber ICD.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Temporal trends among patients undergoing single- vs dual-chamber ICDs were determined using the Cochran-Armitage trend test, and hospital-level variation using adjusted hospital median odds ratios was examined.

RESULTS

A total of 266 182 patients (single-chamber ICD, 134 925; dual-chamber ICD, 131 257) were included in this analysis; mean (SD) age was 58.0 (14.0) years and 91 990 patients (68.2%) were men. The use of dual-chamber ICDs decreased from 64.7% (n = 15 694) in 2010 to 42.2% (n = 9762) in 2018 (P < .001). Adjusted for patient characteristics, the median hospital-level proportion of single-chamber ICDs increased from 42.9% (95% CI, 42.6%-45.0%) in 2010 to 50.0% (95% CI, 47.8%-51.0%) in 2018. The median odds ratio for the use of dual-chamber ICDs, adjusted for patient characteristics, was 1.6 (95% CI, 1.6-1.8) in 2010 and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.5-1.8) in 2018, indicating decreasing but persistent variation in use.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this national study of US patients undergoing first-time ICD implantation without a clinical indication for an atrial lead, the use of dual-chamber devices decreased. However, institutional variability in the use of atrial leads persists, suggesting differences in individual or institutional cultures of real-world practice and opportunity to reduce this low-value practice.

OUP accepted manuscript

Aims

To report 5-year outcomes of EFFORTLESS registry patients with early generation subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) devices.

Methods and results

Kaplan–Meier, trend and multivariable analyses were performed for mortality and late (years 2–5) complications, appropriate shock (AS) and inappropriate shock (IAS) rates. Nine hundred and eighty-four of 994 enrolled patients with diverse diagnoses (28% female, 48 ± 17 years, body mass index 27 ± 6 kg/m², ejection fraction 43 ± 18%) underwent S-ICD implantation. Median follow-up was 5.1 years (interquartile range 4.7–5.5 years). All-cause mortality was 9.3% (95% confidence interval 7.2–11.3%) at 5 years; 703 patients remained in follow-up on study completion, 171 withdrew including 87 (8.8%) with device explanted, and 65 (6.6%) lost to follow-up. Of the explants, only 20 (2.0%) patients needed a transvenous device for pacing indications. First and final shock efficacy for discrete ventricular arrhythmias was consistent at 90% and 98%, respectively, with storm episode final shock efficacy at 95.2%. Time to therapy remained unaltered. Overall 1- and 5-year complication rates were 8.9% and 15.2%, respectively. Early complications did not predict later complications. There were no structural lead failures. Inappropriate shock rates at 1 and 5 years were 8.7% and 16.9%, respectively. Self-terminating inappropriately sensed episodes predicted late IAS. Predictors of late AS included self-terminating appropriately sensed episodes and earlier AS.

Conclusion

In this diverse S-ICD registry population, spontaneous shock efficacy was consistently high over 5 years. Very few patients underwent S-ICD replacement with a transvenous device for pacing indications. Treated and self-terminating arrhythmic episodes predict future shock events, which should encourage more personalized device optimization.

Influence of "high" defibrillation thresholds on patient survival and impact of system modification

OBJECTIVE

To test whether a high defibrillation threshold (DFT) marks patients with poor outcomes which are improved when DFT is decreased by system modification (subcutaneous coil implant; SM).

BACKGROUND

The electrical substrate generating fast ventricular arrhythmias may generate poor outcomes among patients treated with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), even when arrhythmias are treated successfully. Since patients with high DFTs have increased mortality, we contrasted survival among patients with high DFT treated with and without SM.

METHODS

We studied consecutive patients undergoing ICD implantation and DFT testing at Cleveland Clinic over a 14-year period. High DFT was defined as successful defibrillation by shock strength >25 J or ≤10 J of maximal device output. Mortality was recorded using the Social Security Death Index. Survival was compared among those high DFT patients receiving SM versus the remainder.

RESULTS

Out of 6353 patients tested, 191 (3%) had high DFT (32.1 ± 3.7 J) versus 13.9 ± 4.9 J in the remainder ("acceptable DFT," p < .001). One hundred twenty-one high DFT patients (63%; 33.3 ± 3.4 J) underwent SM, which significantly decreased DFT (24.8 ± 5.9 J; p < .001). Seventy patients (37%; 30.3 ± 3.3 J) did not undergo SM. During follow-up, 38% (2363/6162; 7.8 yrs) patients with acceptable DFT died versus 48% high DFT patients (91/191; 5.6 yrs.; p < .001). Concomitantly, 48% patients with SM (58/121) died, as compared to 47% patients (33/70) without SM (p = .91); median follow-up 4.9 yrs).

CONCLUSION

Patients with high DFT have a higher mortality than those with acceptable DFT. The additional subcutaneous coil implant decreases DFT to an acceptable range but does not appear to improve survival. The electrical substrate underlying high DFT appears to determine survival.

Stereotactic radioablation for ventricular tachycardia

Non-invasive stereotactic radioablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) substrate has been proposed as a novel treatment modality for patients not eligible for catheter-based ablation or in whom this approach has failed. Initial clinical results are promising with good short-term efficacy in VT suppression and tolerable side effects. This article reviews the current clinical evidence for cardiac radioablation and gives an overview of important preclinical and translational results. Practical guidance is provided, and a cardiac radioablation planning and treatment workflow based on expert consensus and the authors' institutional experience is set out.

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.

1-Year Prospective Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes and Shocks: The Subcutaneous ICD Post Approval Study

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated spontaneous arrhythmias and clinical outcomes in the S-ICD System PAS (Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Post Approval Study) cohort.

BACKGROUND

The U.S. S-ICD PAS trial patient population more closely resembles transvenous ICD cohorts than earlier studies, which included many patients with little structural heart disease and few comorbidities. Early outcomes and low peri-operative complication rates were demonstrated in the S-ICD PAS cohort, but there are no data detailing spontaneous arrhythmias and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

The S-ICD PAS prospective registry included 1,637 de novo patients from 86 U.S. centers. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier time to event, and multivariate logistic regression were performed using data out to 365 days.

RESULTS

Patients (68.5% men; mean ejection fraction of 32.0%; 42.9% ischemic; 13.4% on dialysis) underwent implantation for primary (76.6%) or secondary prevention indication. The complication-free rate was 92.5%. The appropriate shock (AS) rate was 5.3%. A total of 395 ventricular tachycardia (VT) or fibrillation (VF) episodes were appropriately sensed, with 131 (33.2%) self-terminating. First and final shock efficacy (up to 5 shocks) for the 127 discrete AS episodes were 91.3% and 100.0%, respectively. Discrete AS episodes included 67 monomorphic VT (MVT) and 60 polymorphic VT (PVT)/VF, with first shock efficacy of 95.2% and 86.7%, respectively. There were 19 storm events in 18 subjects, with 84.2% conversion success. Storm episodes were more likely PVT/VF (98 of 137).

CONCLUSIONS

In the first year after implantation, a predominantly primary prevention population with low ejection fraction demonstrated a high complication-free rate and spontaneous event shock efficacy for MVT and PVT/VF arrhythmias at rapid ventricular rates. (Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator System Post Approval Study [S-ICD PAS; NCT01736618).

Single Coil Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Leads in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

Patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HC) may require higher energies to terminate ventricular fibrillation (VF); thus, dual coil defibrillation leads are often implanted. However, single coil leads may be preferred in young patients. All patients with HCM implanted with a transvenous ICD from years 2000 to 2014 were included. Of 249 patients, 223 underwent VF testing including 150 with a dual coil lead and 73 a single coil. Patients tested with dual coil compared with single coil had lower successful VF energies (15.7 ± 6.1 joule to 20.2 ± 7.9 joule (p <0.0001)). Adequate safety margin for defibrillation was noted in 97.3% of patients. Notably, 6 (4 with single coil leads) had inadequate safety margins (defined as ≥10 joule). Three of these 6 patients required replacement of a single coil lead with a dual coil lead. The remaining 3 underwent waveform tilt alteration, higher energy ICD, or removal of the can from the shock vector. There were no clinical or implant predictors of inadequate safety margins. In follow-up of 16 ± 30 months (range 0 to 170), there were 24 arrhythmias including 13 VF, all successfully terminated. In conclusion, in HC patients undergoing ICD implantation, single coil leads can provide adequate safety margins. In conclusion, defibrillation testing should be considered in all HC patients undergoing ICD implantation, and should be performed in those undergoing implantation with a single coil lead.

Defibrillation threshold testing during implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation: 5-year follow-up

PURPOSE

Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing is a routine practice in some Asian countries for patients receiving an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). However, there are few long-term data about the necessity of intraoperative DFT testing in an Asian population. We investigated the safety of DFT testing and the long-term clinical outcomes in Asian patients undergoing ICD implantation.

METHODS

All patients undergoing de novo transvenous ICD implantation were randomized to undergo periprocedural DFT testing. The study included 67 patients (50 males; 51.5 ± 16.9 years) who underwent ICD implantation with (n = 33) or without (n = 34) intraoperative DFT testing between March 2012 and February 2014. We compared first-shock success, composite safety end points (the sum of complications recorded at 30 days), arrhythmic death, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

The baseline clinical characteristics and the procedural-related adverse event rate (3.0% with DFT vs. 0% with non-DFT, p = 0.214) did not differ between groups. The programmed output of the first shock was lower in the DFT testing group (22.9 ± 4.4 J vs. 25.3 ± 5.4 J, p = 0.007). However, there were no significant differences between groups for all-cause mortality (12.1% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.526) or first-shock success rate for ventricular arrhythmia (100% vs. 88.2%, p = 0.471).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no between-group differences in periprocedural safety, complications, and long-term clinical outcomes. Our results suggest that DFT testing in Asian patients allows reduction of the programmed output of the first shock, but does not affect long-term clinical outcomes.

Analysis of Temporal Trends and Variation in the Use of Defibrillation Testing in Contemporary Practice

IMPORTANCE

Defibrillation testing (DFT) is performed during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation to assess the capacity of the device to detect and terminate ventricular arrhythmias. However, DFT can result in complications and omission of its use has been shown to be safe.

OBJECTIVE

To describe temporal trends and variation in the use of DFT in contemporary practice in the United States.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter cross-sectional study used data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. A total of 499 211 patients from 1794 different facilities undergoing first-time ICD implantation from April 2010 to December 2015 were included. Data analysis was performed from May 20, 2015, to August 15, 2019.

EXPOSURE

Defibrillation testing was assessed using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Defibrillation testing rates and median odds ratios (MORs) were assessed over time. The MOR represents the odds that a randomly selected patient receiving testing at a hospital with high testing rates would be tested compared with if he or she had received care at a hospital with low testing rates.

RESULTS

Of the 499 211 patients from 1794 different facilities included in this analysis, the mean (SD) age of the population was 65.5 (13.4) years and 356 681 patients (71.4%) were men. The use of DFT declined from 71.6% in the first calendar quarter of 2010 to 36.4% in the fourth quarter of 2015 (P < .001). Patients undergoing DFT were more likely than those without testing to have ischemic heart disease (170 569 [58.1%] vs 116 295 [56.6%]), ventricular tachycardia (91 500 [31.2%] vs 58 949 [28.7%]), and less advanced heart failure (New York Heart Association class I and II, 153 188 [52.2%] vs 91 215 [44.4%]) (P < .001 for all). The MOR for the use of defibrillation testing was 3.78 (95% CI, 3.54-4.03) in 2010, increasing to 6.05 (95% CI, 5.61-6.52) in 2015, indicating that by 2015 a randomly selected patient receiving testing at a hospital with high testing rates would have a 6-fold higher odds of being tested than if they had received care at a hospital with low testing rates.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Defibrillation testing at the time of ICD placement in the United States may have declined over time; however, institutional variation in its use appears to be marked and increased. This variability in the reduced use of defibrillation testing could reflect differences in individual or institutional cultures of practice.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Pediatric Patients Who Undergo Placement of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: Insights From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry

Background Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are an important part of therapy for many patients, yet there is little data on population characteristics, complications, or system survival in pediatric patients. Methods A retrospective review of ICD recipients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry was performed from 2010 to 2016. Patient characteristics and complications between pediatric (≤21 years) and adult populations (>21 years) were compared. Variables associated with complications and early device interventions within the pediatric cohort were evaluated using multivariate modeling. Results There were 562 209 total ICD implants, of which 3461 occurred in the pediatric cohort. Among the pediatric patients, 60% of implants were for primary prevention, and nonischemic cardiomyopathy was the most common underlying disease (60%). Over time, there was an increasing trend of both primary and secondary prevention ICD implantations ( P<0.05). Compared with adults, pediatric patients were more likely to have structural heart disease, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and channelopathy, and to receive a single-chamber device (all P<0.001). There was no difference in inhospital complications between the adult and pediatric cohorts (2.4% versus 2.6%, P=0.3). However, among the pediatric patients, lower weight, Ebstein anomaly, worse New York Heart Association class, dual chamber, and cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator were associated with greater risk of complications. Although reintervention for generator replacement or upgrade was more common in adults, the time to reintervention was shorter in the pediatric cohort. Conclusions We observed an increasing trend in ICD device implantation among pediatric patients. The pediatric cohort had similar inhospital complication rates compared with adults but had a shorter time to reintervention.

Defibrillation Threshold Testing: Current Status

When the transvenous ICD initially came into use for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death, defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing was universally performed. However, DFT testing is no longer routinely recommended for transvenous ICD implantation except in certain situations. Risk scores can help guide the decision to perform DFT testing. The subcutaneous ICD represents an area of uncertainty, with limited data available regarding the role of DFT testing in these devices. Current guidelines give a class I recommendation for performing DFT testing at the time of implant. Further studies are needed before this recommendation can be safely dismissed.

Routine DFT testing in patients undergoing ICD implantation does not improve mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing has been an integral part of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation to confirm appropriate sensing of ventricular fibrillation and to establish an adequate safety margin for defibrillation. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding benefits of routine DFT testing. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to assess its mortality benefit. We searched MEDLINE for studies comparing mortality outcomes in ICD recipients who underwent DFT testing to those who did not. For the second analysis, studies comparing outcomes in patients with high- vs low-energy DFT were included. Odds ratio and standard errors were calculated, and inverse variance method in a random-effect model was used to combine effect sizes. Fifteen studies with 10,975 subjects comparing outcomes in patients who underwent routine DFT testing during ICD implantation and those who did not were included. There was no difference in the group that did not undergo DFT testing with regards to all-cause mortality (OR 0.935; CI 0.725-1.207; P = 0.606), cardiac mortality (OR 0.709; CI 0.385-1.307; P = 0.271), noncardiac mortality (OR 0.921; CI 0.701-1.210; P = 0.554), and arrhythmic mortality (OR 1.152; CI 0.831-1.596; P = 0.396). Percentage of successful appropriate first shocks among the two groups showed no difference. Five studies with 2278 subjects were included in the second analysis comparing patients with low DFT vs high DFT. Patients with high DFT had no significant increase in all-cause mortality compared to patients with low DFT (OR 0.527; CI 0.034-8.107; P = 0.646). Patients requiring higher DFT had no increased all-cause mortality compared to patients with lower DFT. Routine DFT testing during ICD implantation does not confer any significant benefit.

Effect of defibrillation threshold testing on effectiveness of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator

BACKGROUND

Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing is recommended with the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (SICD).

OBJECTIVE

To describe first shock efficacy for appropriate SICD therapies stratified by the presence of implant DFT testing.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients receiving SICDs at our institution and stratified them based on whether implant DFT testing was performed. Appropriate shocks were reviewed to see if ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) terminated with a single shock. First shock efficacy was stratified by implant DFT status.

RESULTS

178 patients implanted with SICDs and followed in our center were included in this study. Of these, 135 (76%) underwent DFT testing (DFT (+) group). In the DFT (+), 80 appropriate shocks were needed to treat 69 episodes of VT/VF. The first shock was effective in 61 out of 69 episodes (88.4%), whereas multiple shocks were required to terminate VT/VF in the remaining eight episodes. Among 43 patients without implant DFT testing (DFT (-) group), 20 appropriate shocks to treat 17 episodes of VT/VF occurred in seven patients. VT/VF was successfully terminated with the first shock in 16 out of 17 episodes (first shock efficacy 94.1 %). There was no significant difference in first shock effectiveness between those with and without implant DFT testing (P  =  0.97).

CONCLUSION

A strategy that omits DFT testing at implant did not appear to compromise the effectiveness of the SICD. These data suggest that routine DFT testing at SICD implant might not be necessary. Randomized trials are needed to confirm this finding.

Predictors of a high defibrillation threshold test during routine ICD implantation

BACKGROUND

There is growing evidence that routine defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing during implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation is not necessary. However a small group of patients might be at risk if no DFT testing is performed.

METHODS

Patients with a new pectoral ICD implantation in our hospital between 2006 and 2014 were included in a retrospective registry. A clinical high DFT was defined as a safety margin <10 J of the maximal device output. Logistic regression for prediction of high DFT was performed using patient characteristics, clinical, echocardiographic and device-related parameters.

RESULTS

DFT testing was performed in 788/864 (91.2%) procedures. In 76 (8.8%) patients no DFT testing was performed mainly due to atrial fibrillation, intra-cardiac thrombus, hemodynamic instability or logistical reasons. A high DFT was present in 44 (5.6%) patients. A QRS duration ≥150 ms, a low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤25%), a severely dilated left ventricle ≥60 mm and right sided pre-pectoral implantations were univariate predictors of a high DFT. Independent predictors of a high DFT were a LVEF ≤25% (HR 2.195, 95%CI 1.085-4.443) and right sided pre-pectoral implantations (HR 3.135, 95% CI 1.186-8.287).

CONCLUSIONS

A high DFT is still present in about 5% of patients and is more frequent in patients with a severely dilated left ventricle, a very low LVEF, right sided pre-pectoral implantation and wider QRS duration. It might be clinically important to continue DFT testing in these high risk patients.

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator--review of the recent data

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (SICD) is an alternative to the transvenous ICD for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Multiple studies have shown that the SICD is safe and effective in treating ventricular arrhythmias. While earlier studies mainly enrolled younger patients with channelopathies, more recent reports included patients with “typical” indications for ICD therapy for the prevention of SCD. In this review we summarize the data available to date on the SICD while highlighting its pros and cons.

The Subcutaneous Defibrillator

The transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been shown in multiple studies to be effective in the prevention of sudden cardiac death in select populations. The Achilles heel of traditional ICD technology has been the transvenous lead. The subcutaneous ICD provides effective sudden death protection while avoiding lead-related complications of traditional transvenous systems. The subcutaneous ICD is a reasonable option for patients with an ICD indication who do not need bradycardia pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Critical analysis of ineffective post implantation implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-testing

AIM

To test of the implantable-cardioverter-defibrillator is done at the time of implantation. We investigate if any testing should be performed.

METHODS

All consecutive patients between January 2006 and December 2008 undergoing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation/replacement (a total of 634 patients) were included in the retrospective study.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients (2.5%) were not tested (9 with LA/LV-thrombus, 7 due to operator’s decision). Analyzed were 618 patients [76% men, 66.4 + 11 years, 24% secondary prevention (SP), 46% with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 20%, 56% had coronary artery disease (CAD)] undergoing defibrillation safety testing (SMT) with an energy of 21 + 2.3 J. In 22/618 patients (3.6%) induced ventricular fibrillation (VF) could not be terminated with maximum energy of the ICD. Six of those (27%) had successful SMT after system modification or shock lead repositioning, 14 patients (64%) received a subcutaneous electrode array. Younger age (P = 0.0003), non-CAD (P = 0.007) and VF as index event for SP (P = 0.05) were associated with a higher incidence of ineffective SMT. LVEF < 20% and incomplete revascularisation in patients with CAD had no impact on SMT.

CONCLUSION

Defibrillation testing is well-tolerated. An ineffective SMT occurred in 4% and two third of those needed implantation of a subcutaneous electrode array to pass a SMT > 10 J.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator management: an update

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is the cornerstone of primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. In 35 years of technologic improvement and clinical trials, there has been a continuous increase in implantation rate. Purpose of this review is to point out and discuss every aspect related to actual ICD management, investigating implantation procedure and predischarge care, office and remote monitoring follow-up, diagnostic evaluations, management of patients with suspected therapies or malfunctions, heart failure, surgery, radiotherapy and endoscopic procedures. Also, ICD backface such as infections and other complications will be discussed. Finally, we will focus on interesting future perspectives for this setting of patients.

The Impact of Inappropriate Implantable Cardiac Defibrillator Shocks on Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality

BACKGROUND

The impact of inappropriate implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) shocks on cardiac outcomes is controversial. Shocks due to lead noise are unique in that they are not an outcome of worsening rhythm status. In this study, we compared the outcome of patients with and without inappropriate shocks who underwent Sprint Fidelis lead (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) extraction.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 147 patients who underwent Sprint Fidelis lead extraction in our institution between May 2007 and August 2012. The patients were separated into those with (Group 1) and without (Group 2) inappropriate shocks due to lead noise. Pertinent data were obtained from chart review.

RESULTS

There were 57 and 90 patients in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. The mean ± standard deviation number of inappropriate shocks in Group 1 was 16 ± 22. There was no difference in the baseline demographics, risk factors, and cardiac history between the groups. There were no extraction-related deaths and there was no difference in the rate of periprocedural complications between the groups. The mean total hospital length of stay (LOS) was longer for Group 1 versus 2; however, the mean postprocedure LOS was the same between the groups. During follow-up, there was no difference in the cardiac readmission rate over a 1-year period (four vs seven patients in Group 1 vs 2, respectively; P = 0.8). Long-term follow-up revealed similar mortality rates in both groups. (18 patients in Group 1, and 21 patients in Group 2; P = 0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Inappropriate shocks due to lead noise do not seem to predispose to a worse clinical outcome after ICD lead extraction.

Systematic Review of Defibrillation Threshold Testing at De Novo Implantation

Background—

Recent results from the largest multicenter randomized trial (Shockless IMPLant Evaluation [SIMPLE]) on defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing suggest that while shock testing seems safe, it does not reduce the risk of failed shocks or prolong survival. A contemporary systematic review of DFT versus no-DFT testing at the time of implantable cardioverter–defibrillator implantation was performed to evaluate the current evidence and to assess the impact of the SIMPLE study.

Methods and Results—

Electronic searches were performed using 6 databases from their inception to March 2014. Relevant studies investigating implant DFT were identified. Data were extracted and analyzed according to predefined clinical end points. Predefined outcomes for interrogation were all-cause mortality, composite end point of implantable cardioverter–defibrillator efficacy (arrhythmic deaths and ineffective shocks), and composite safety end point (the sum of complications recorded at 30 days). Meta-analysis was performed including 13 studies and 9740 patients. No significant differences between DFT versus no-DFT cohorts were found in terms of all-cause mortality (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.71–1.15; P =0.41), composite efficacy outcome (risk ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.65–3.37; P =0.51), and 30-day postimplant complications (risk ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.87–1.60; P =0.29). No significant difference was found in the trends observed when the results of the SIMPLE study were excluded or included.

Conclusions—

This systematic review of contemporary data suggests a modest average effect of DFT, if any, in terms of mortality, shock efficacy, or safety. Therefore, DFT testing should no longer be compulsory during de novo implantation. However, DFT testing may still be clinically relevant in specific patient populations.

Defibrillation Threshold Testing: Who Doesn't Get It?

Defibrillation testing has been routinely performed as part of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation procedure, and is currently supported by practice guidelines; however, more recently, this practice has been called into question. Such testing is safe, and serious complications are rare. With modern ICD systems, physicians will rarely encounter a patient in whom defibrillation will fail. This article reviews the literature regarding the utility, necessity, complications, and cost of routine operative and follow-up defibrillation testing, and, it is hoped, clarifies the issue of "Who doesn't get it?"

Incidence of ineffective safety margin testing (<10 J) and efficacy of routine subcutaneous array insertion during implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation

The purpose of this study was to assess (1) the incidence of safety margin testing <10 J (SMT) and (2) the efficacy/safety of routinely adding a subcutaneous array (SQA) (Medtronic 6996SQ) for these patients.

Patients with SMT smaller than a 10-J safety margin from maximum output were considered to have very high readings and underwent SQA insertion. These patients were compared with the rest of the patients who had acceptable SMT (≥10 J).

A total of 616 patients underwent ICD implantation during the analysis period. Of those, 16 (2.6%) had SMT <10 J. By univariate analysis, younger age, and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, were all significant predictors of SMT <10 J (p < 0.05). In all 16 cases, other methods to improve SMT prior to array insertion were attempted but failed for all patients: reversing shock polarity (n = 15), removing the superior vena cava coil (n = 14), reprogramming shock waveform (n = 9), and repositioning right ventricular lead (n = 9). Addition of the SQA successfully increased SMT to within safety margin for all patients (32 ± 2 versus 21 ± 3 J; p < 0.001). Follow-up (mean 48.1 ± 21 months) was available for all patients with SQA, only 2 cases with inappropriate shocks due to atrial fibrillation had to be noted. None of the patients experienced complications due to SQA implantation.

SMT <10 J occur in about 2.6% of patients undergoing ICD implantation. SQA insertion corrects this problem without procedural/mid-term complications.

Complications of defibrillation testing. A review of the literature

Defibrillation testing (DT) has traditionally been performed at the time of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) insertion. However, there has been a trend away from conducting DT, in part due to observational studies showing uncommon but serious complications related to DT. More recently, several randomized trials have shown no improvement in the efficacy of clinical shocks among patients assigned to have DT. These trials also suggest a modest increase in perioperative complications related to DT; however, the overall rate of complications was very low. This review focuses on the prevalence of complications associated with DT and elaborates on a number of indications for DT.

Etiology and Programming Effects on Shock Efficacy in ICD Recipients

BACKGROUND

We sought to assess the efficacy of high-energy shocks to restore rhythm and predictors of success in patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from 162 patients included in the UMBRELLA study that experienced one or more episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) for which ICD shocks of at least 30 Joules were delivered (appropriate high-energy shocks) were analyzed. In total, 456 ventricular arrhythmia episodes were registered. Forty four episodes (9.6%) from 39 patients (24%) had at least one ineffective high-energy shock delivered. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy was more frequent among patients with unsuccessful shocks (10.3% vs 2.4%). Patients with ineffective shocks had higher proportion of sustained monomorphic ventricular arrhythmias (86.4%; the other 13.6% were sustained polymorphic and ventricular fibrillation [VF]) compared with patients with all their shocks effective (62.9%, P = 0.02). No statistical differences were found between groups in time from detection to the high-energy shock delivery, in tachycardia cycle length, or in antitachycardia pacing, but patients with ineffective high-energy shocks had higher proportion of previously ineffective low-energy shock (9.1% vs 0.5%, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

We found a substantial rate of ineffective high-energy shocks for the treatment of VT or VF in patients with ICD. High-energy shock efficacy seems to be reduced by hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and by the administration of previous low-energy shocks.

The role of defibrillation testing

The induction and termination of ventricular fibrillation at the time of defibrillator insertion (defibrillation testing [DT]) has traditionally been an integral component of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation. However, over the last 10 years, published series suggested a high rate of first-shock efficacy for clinical ventricular arrhythmias, even if no DT was done. Over the same time, several published reports and series have shown uncommon but serious complications related to DT. Throughout the world, there has been a steady decline in the proportion of patients receiving an ICD who undergo DT, which, in many regions, is less than 50%.

ICD Shock, Not Ventricular Fibrillation, Causes Elevation of High Sensitive Troponin T after Defibrillation Threshold Testing--The Prospective, Randomized, Multicentre TropShock-Trial

BACKGROUND

The placement of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has become routine practice to protect high risk patients from sudden cardiac death. However, implantation-related myocardial micro-damage and its relation to different implantation strategies are poorly characterized.

METHODS

A total of 194 ICD recipients (64±12 years, 83% male, 95% primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, 35% cardiac resynchronization therapy) were randomly assigned to one of three implantation strategies: (1) ICD implantation without any defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing, (2) estimation of the DFT without arrhythmia induction (modified "upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) testing") or (3) traditional safety margin testing including ventricular arrhythmia induction. High-sensitive Troponin T (hsTnT) levels were determined prior to the implantation and 6 hours after.

RESULTS

All three groups showed a postoperative increase of hsTnT. The mean delta was 0.031±0.032 ng/ml for patients without DFT testing, 0.080±0.067 ng/ml for the modified ULV-testing and 0.064±0.056 ng/ml for patients with traditional safety margin testing. Delta hsTnT was significantly larger in both of the groups with intraoperative ICD testing compared to the non-testing strategy (p≤0.001 each). There was no statistical difference in delta hsTnT between the two groups with intraoperative ICD testing (p = 0.179).

CONCLUSION

High-sensitive Troponin T release during ICD implantation is significantly higher in patients with intraoperative ICD testing using shock applications compared to those without testing. Shock applications, with or without arrhythmia induction, did not result in a significantly different delta hsTnT. Hence, the ICD shock itself and not ventricular fibrillation seems to cause myocardial micro-damage.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01230086.

Intra-operative defibrillation testing and clinical shock efficacy in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: the NORDIC ICD randomized clinical trial

AIMS

This trial was designed to test the hypothesis that shock efficacy during follow-up is not impaired in patients implanted without defibrillation (DF) testing during first implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between February 2011 and July 2013, 1077 patients were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to first time ICD implantation with (n = 540) or without (n = 537) DF testing. The intra-operative DF testing was standardized across all participating centres, and all ICD shocks were programmed to 40 J irrespective of DF test results. The primary end point was the average first shock efficacy (FSE) for all true ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation (VT/VF) episodes during follow-up. The secondary end points included procedural data, serious adverse events, and mortality. During a median follow-up of 22.8 months, the model-based FSE was found to be non-inferior in patients with an ICD implanted without a DF test, with a difference in FSE of 3.0% in favour of the no DF test [confidence interval (CI) -3.0 to 9.0%, Pnon-inferiority <0.001 for the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of -10%). A total of 112 procedure-related serious adverse events occurred within 30 days in 94 patients (17.6%) tested compared with 89 events in 74 patients (13.9%) not tested (P = 0.095).

CONCLUSION

Defibrillation efficacy during follow-up is not inferior in patients with a 40 J ICD implanted without DF testing. Defibrillation testing during first time ICD implantation should no longer be recommended for routine left-sided ICD implantation.

Cardioverter defibrillator implantation without induction of ventricular fibrillation: a single-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial (SIMPLE)

BACKGROUND

Defibrillation testing by induction and termination of ventricular fibrillation is widely done at the time of implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ICD implantation without defibrillation testing versus the standard of ICD implantation with defibrillation testing.

METHODS

In this single-blind, randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial (Shockless IMPLant Evaluation [SIMPLE]), we recruited patients aged older than 18 years receiving their first ICD for standard indications at 85 hospitals in 18 countries worldwide. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, awaiting transplantation, particpation in another randomised trial, unavailability for follow-up, or if it was expected that the ICD would have to be implanted on the right-hand side of the chest. Patients undergoing initial implantation of a Boston Scientific ICD were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated sequence to have either defibrillation testing (testing group) or not (no-testing group). We used random block sizes to conceal treatment allocation from the patients, and randomisation was stratified by clinical centre. Our primary efficacy analysis tested the intention-to-treat population for non-inferiority of no-testing versus testing by use of a composite outcome of arrhythmic death or failed appropriate shock (ie, a shock that did not terminate a spontaneous episode of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation). The non-inferiority margin was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·5 calculated from a proportional hazards model with no-testing versus testing as the only covariate; if the upper bound of the 95% CI was less than 1·5, we concluded that ICD insertion without testing was non-inferior to ICD with testing. We examined safety with two, 30 day, adverse event outcome clusters. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00800384.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 13, 2009, and April 4, 2011, of 2500 eligible patients, 1253 were randomly assigned to defibrillation testing and 1247 to no-testing, and followed up for a mean of 3·1 years (SD 1·0). The primary outcome of arrhythmic death or failed appropriate shock occurred in fewer patients (90 [7% per year]) in the no-testing group than patients who did receive it (104 [8% per year]; HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·65-1·14; pnon-inferiority <0·0001). The first safety composite outcome occurred in 69 (5·6%) of 1236 patients with no-testing and in 81 (6·5%) of 1242 patients with defibrillation testing, p=0·33. The second, pre-specified safety composite outcome, which included only events most likely to be directly caused by testing, occurred in 3·2% of patients with no-testing and in 4·5% with defibrillation testing, p=0·08. Heart failure needing intravenous treatment with inotropes or diuretics was the most common adverse event (in 20 [2%] of 1236 patients in the no-testing group vs 28 [2%] of 1242 patients in the testing group, p=0·25).

INTERPRETATION

Routine defibrillation testing at the time of ICD implantation is generally well tolerated, but does not improve shock efficacy or reduce arrhythmic death.

FUNDING

Boston Scientific and the Heart and Stroke Foundation (Ontario Provincial office).

Predictors of high defibrillation threshold in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibillator using a transvenous dual-coil lead

BACKGROUND

Defibrillation testing (DT) is considered a standard procedure during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation. However, little is known about the factors that are significantly related to patients with high defibrillation threshold (DFT) using the present triad system.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined 286 consecutive patients who underwent ICD implantation with a transvenous dual-coil lead and DT from December 2000 to December 2011. We defined patients who required 25 J or more by the implanted device as the high DFT group, and those who required less than 25 J as the normal DFT group. For each patient, assessment parameters included underlying disease, comorbidities, NYHA functional class, drugs, and echocardiographic measures. The high DFT group consisted of 12 patients (4.2%). Multivariate analysis identified 3 independent predictors for high DFT: atrial fibrillation (odds ratio (OR) 4.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24-22.33, P=0.023), hypertension (OR 4.01, 95% CI 1.08-15.96, P=0.039), thickness of interventricular septum (IVS) >12 mm (OR 4.82, 95% CI 1.17-20.31, P=0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

Atrial fibrillation, hypertension and IVS hypertrophy were significantly associated with high DFT. Identification of such patients could help to lower the risk of complications with DT.

The NO Regular Defibrillation testing In Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation (NORDIC ICD) trial: concept and design of a randomized, controlled trial of intra-operative defibrillation testing during de novo defibrillator implantation

AIMS

Although defibrillation (DF) testing is still considered a standard procedure during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) insertion and has been an essential element of all trials that demonstrated the survival benefit of ICD therapy, there are no large randomized clinical trials demonstrating that DF testing improves clinical outcome and if the outcome would remain the same by omitting DF testing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between February 2011 and July 2013, we randomly assigned 1077 patients to ICD implantation with (n = 540) or without (n = 537) DF testing. The intra-operative DF testing was standardized across all participating centres. After inducing a fast ventricular tachycardia (VT) with a heart rate ≥240 b.p.m. or ventricular fibrillation (VF) with a low-energy T-wave shock, DF was attempted with an initial 15 J shock. If the shock reversed the VT or VF, DF testing was considered successful and terminated. If unsuccessful, two effective 24 J shocks were administered. If DF was unsuccessful, the system was reconfigured and another DF testing was performed. An ICD shock energy of 40 J had to be programmed in all patients for treatment of spontaneous VT/VF episodes. The primary endpoint was the average efficacy of the first ICD shock for all true VT/VF episodes in each patient during follow-up. The secondary endpoints included the frequency of system revisions, total fluoroscopy, implantation time, procedural serious adverse events, and all-cause, cardiac, and arrhythmic mortality during follow-up. Home Monitoring was used in all patients to continuously monitor the system integrity, device programming and performance.

CONCLUSION

The NO Regular Defibrillation testing In Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation (NORDIC ICD) trial is one of two large prospective randomized trials assessing the effect of DF testing omission during ICD implantation.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER

NCT01282918.