Modern subcutaneous implantable defibrillator therapy in patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies: data from a large multicentre registry

Candidacy and long-term outcomes of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in current practice in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

In patients with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM) S-ICD is usually the preferred option as pacing is generally not indicated. However, limited data are available on its current practice adoption and long-term follow-up.

METHODS

Consecutive HCM patients with S-ICD implanted between 2013 and 2021 in 3 international centers were enrolled in this observational study. Baseline, procedural and follow-up data were regularly collected. Efficacy and safety were compared with a cohort of HCM patients implanted with a tv-ICD.

RESULTS

Seventy patients (64% males) were implanted with S-ICD at 41 ± 15 years, whereas 168 patients with tv-ICD at 49 ± 16 years. For S-ICD patients, mean ESC SCD risk score was 4,5 ± 1.9%: 25 (40%) at low-risk, 17 (27%) at intermediate and 20 (33%) at high-risk. Patients were followed-up for 5.1 ± 2.3 years. Two patients (0.6 per 100-person-years, vs 0.4 per 100 person-years with tv-ICD, p = 0.45) received an appropriate shock on VF, 17 (24%) were diagnosed with de-novo AF. Inappropriate shocks occurred in 4 patients (1.2 per 100-person-years, vs 0.9 per 100 person-years with tv-ICD, p = 0.74), all before Smart-Pass algorithm implementation. Four patients experienced device-related adverse events (1.2 per 100-person-years, vs 1 per 100 person-years with tv-ICD, p = 0.35%).

CONCLUSIONS

S-ICDs were often implanted in patients with an overall low-intermediate ESC SCD risk, reflecting both the inclusion of additional risk markers and a lower decision threshold. S-ICDs in HCM patients followed for over 5 years showed to be effective in conversion of VF and safe. Greater scrutiny may be required to avoid overtreatment in patients with milder risk profiles.

Sex differences among subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients: a propensity-matched, multicentre, international analysis from the i-SUSI project

AIMS

Women have been historically underrepresented in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) trials. No data on sex differences regarding subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICD) carriers have been described. Aim of our study was to investigate sex-related differences among unselected S-ICD recipients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients enrolled in the multicentre, international i-SUSI registry were analysed. Comparisons between sexes were performed using a 1:1 propensity matching adjusted analysis for age, body mass index (BMI), left ventricular function, and substrate. The primary outcome was the rate of appropriate shocks during follow-up. Inappropriate shocks and other device-related complications were deemed secondary outcomes. A total of 1698 patients were extracted from the i-SUSI registry; 399 (23.5%) were females. After propensity matching, two cohorts of 374 patients presenting similar baseline characteristics were analysed. Despite similar periprocedural characteristics and a matched BMI, women resulted at lower risk of conversion failure as per PRAETORIAN score (73.4% vs. 81.3%, P = 0.049). Over a median follow-up time of 26.5 [12.7-42.5] months, appropriate shocks were more common in the male cohort (rate/year 3.4% vs. 1.7%; log-rank P = 0.049), while no significant differences in device-related complications (rate/year: 6.3% vs. 5.8%; log-rank P = 0.595) and inappropriate shocks (rate/year: 4.3% vs. 3.1%; log-rank P = 0.375) were observed. After controlling for confounders, sex remained significantly associated with the primary outcome (aHR 1.648; CI 0.999-2.655, P = 0.048), while not resulting predictor of inappropriate shocks and device-related complications.

CONCLUSION

In a propensity-matched cohort of S-ICD recipients, women are less likely to experience appropriate ICD therapy, while not showing higher risk of device-related complications.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0473876.

Left ventricular assist device in the presence of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Data from a multicenter experience

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an increasingly used strategy for the management of patients with advanced heart failure (HF). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) might be a viable alternative to conventional ICDs with a lower risk of short- and long-term of device-related complications and infections.The aim of this multicenter study was to evaluate the outcomes and management of S-ICD recipients who underwent LVAD implantation.

METHODS

The study population included patients with a preexisting S-ICD who underwent LVAD implantation for advanced HF despite optimal medical therapy.

RESULTS

The study population included 30 patients (25 male; median age 45 [38-52] years).The HeartMate III was the most common LVAD type. Median follow-up in the setting of concomitant use of S-ICDs and LVADs was 7 months (1-20).There were no reports of inability to interrogate S-ICD systems in this population. Electromagnetic interference (EMI) occurred in 21 (70%) patients. The primary sensing vector was the one most significantly involved in determining EMI. Twenty-seven patients (90%) remained eligible for S-ICD implantation with at least one optimal sensing vector. The remaining 3 patients (10%) were ineligible for S-ICD after attempts of reprogramming of sensing vectors. Six patients (20%) experienced inappropriate shocks (IS) due to EMI. Six patients (20%) experienced appropriate shocks. No S-ICD extraction because of need for antitachycardia pacing, ineffective therapy or infection was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant use of LVAD and S-ICD is feasible in most patients. However, the potential risk of EMI oversensing, IS and undersensing in the post-operative period following LVAD implantation should be considered. Careful screening for EMI should be performed in all sensing vectors after LVAD implantation.

New Guidelines of Pediatric Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: What Is Changing in Clinical Practice?

Guidelines are important tools to guide the diagnosis and treatment of patients to improve the decision-making process of health professionals. They are periodically updated according to new evidence. Four new Guidelines in 2021, 2022 and 2023 referred to pediatric pacing and defibrillation. There are some relevant changes in permanent pacing. In patients with atrioventricular block, the heart rate limit in which pacemaker implantation is recommended was decreased to reduce too-early device implantation. However, it was underlined that the heart rate criterion is not absolute, as signs or symptoms of hemodynamically not tolerated bradycardia may even occur at higher rates. In sinus node dysfunction, symptomatic bradycardia is the most relevant recommendation for pacing. Physiological pacing is increasingly used and recommended when the amount of ventricular pacing is presumed to be high. New recommendations suggest that loop recorders may guide the management of inherited arrhythmia syndromes and may be useful for severe but not frequent palpitations. Regarding defibrillator implantation, the main changes are in primary prevention recommendations. In hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, pediatric risk calculators have been included in the Guidelines. In dilated cardiomyopathy, due to the rarity of sudden cardiac death in pediatric age, low ejection fraction criteria were demoted to class II. In long QT syndrome, new criteria included severely prolonged QTc with different limits according to genotype, and some specific mutations. In arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy, hemodynamically tolerated ventricular tachycardia and arrhythmic syncope were downgraded to class II recommendation. In conclusion, these new Guidelines aim to assess all aspects of cardiac implantable electronic devices and improve treatment strategies.

Revascularization and Left Ventricular Dysfunction for ICD Eligibility

Common triggers for sudden cardiac death (SCD) are transient ischemia, hemodynamic fluctuations, neurocardiovascular influences, and environmental factors. SCD occurs rapidly when sinus rhythm degenerates into ventricular tachycardia (VT) and/or ventricular fibrillation (VF), followed by asystole. Such progressive worsening of the cardiac rhythm is in most cases observed in the setting of ischemic heart disease and often associated with advanced left ventricular (LV) impairment. Revascularization prevents negative outcomes including SCD and heart failure (HF) due to LV dysfunction (LVD). The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) on top of medical therapy is superior to antiarrhythmic drugs for patients with LVD and VT/VF. The beneficial effects of ICD have been demonstrated in primary prevention of SCD as well. However, yet debated is the temporal management for patients with LVD who are eligible to ICD prior to revascularization, either through percutaneous or surgical approach. Restoration of coronary blood flow has a dramatic impact on adverse LV remodeling, while it requires aggressive long-term antiplatelet therapy, which might increase complication for eventual ICD procedure when percutaneous strategy is pursued; on the other hand, when LV and/or multiorgan dysfunction is present and coronary artery bypass grafting is chosen, the overall risk is augmented, mostly in HF patients. The aims of this review are to describe the pathophysiologic benefits of revascularization, the studies addressing percutaneous, surgical or no revascularization and ICD implantation, as well as emerging defibrillation strategies for patients deemed at transient risk of SCD and/or at higher risk for transvenous ICD implantation.