United Kingdom national experience of entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator technology: important lessons to learn

Reduction of inappropriate shock rate through signal filtering (smart-pass) in patients with implantable subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICD) are effective in protecting patients against sudden death but expose them to a higher risk of inappropriate shock (IAS). We performed a systematic search of studies published between January 2010 and December 2019 assessing IAS due to cardiac oversensing by the selection process (PRISMA) and identified 17 eligible articles. Fifteen studies were observational, and two studies were retrospective. For the meta-analysis, the final population included 6111 patients: 3356 without SMART pass (SP) filter (group 1) and 2755 with SP filter (group 2). 1614 shocks (appropriate shocks plus IAS) were registered (1245 in group 1 and 369 in group 2). The random effects meta-analysis estimated an overall IAS rate of 7.78% (95% confidence interval: 4.93-10.64) with substantial variability between studies (I square=96.05%, p<0.001). The IAS rate was 10.75% (95% confidence interval: 8.49-13.02) for group 1 and 3.61% (95% confidence interval: 1.36-5.86) for group 2 (p<0.001). Third-generation S-ICD technology with SP filters reduced the risk of cardiac signal-related IAS.

Systematic Review on S-ICD Lead Extraction

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) have emerged in recent years as a valid alternative to traditional transvenous ICDs (TV-ICDs). Therefore, the number of S-ICD implantations is rising, leading to a consequent increase in S-ICD-related complications sometimes requiring complete device removal. Thus, the aim of this systematic review is to gather all the available literature on S-ICD lead extraction (SLE), with particular reference to the type of indication, techniques, complications and success rate.

METHODS

Studies were identified by searching electronic databases (Medline via PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) from inception to 21 November 2022. The search strategy adopted was developed using the following key words: subcutaneous, S-ICD, defibrillator, ICD, extraction, explantation. Studies were included if they met both of the following criteria: (1) inclusion of patients with S-ICD; (2) inclusion of patients who underwent SLE.

RESULTS

Our literature search identified 238 references. Based on the abstract evaluation, 38 of these citations were considered potentially eligible for inclusion, and their full texts were analyzed. We excluded 8 of these studies because no SLE was performed. Eventually, 30 studies were included, with 207 patients who underwent SLE. Overall, the majority of SLEs were performed for non-infective causes (59.90%). Infection of the device (affecting either the lead or the pocket) was the cause of SLE in 38.65% of cases. Indication data were not available in 3/207 cases. The mean dwelling time was 14 months. SLEs were performed using manual traction or with the aid of a tool designed for transvenous lead extraction (TLE), including either a rotational or non-powered mechanical dilator sheath.

CONCLUSIONS

SLE is performed mainly for non-infective causes. Techniques vary greatly across different studies. Dedicated tools for SLE might be developed in the future and standard approaches should be defined. In the meantime, authors are encouraged to share their experience and data to further refine the existing variegated approaches.

The Role of Subcutaneous ICDs in the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death

The ICD is an important therapy in the prevention of sudden cardiac death. The transvenous-ICD (TV-ICD) has been the primary device used for this purpose. However, mechanical and infectious complications occur with traditional TV-ICDs increasing morbidity and mortality. The subcutaneous-ICD (S-ICD) system was developed to circumvent some of these complications, but S-ICDs have their inherent set of limitations as well. These include inappropriate shock delivery, lack of bradycardia, antitachycardia or CRT pacing therapy and shorter device longevity. The S-ICD is now included in guidelines as an acceptable alternative to TV-ICDs among patients without pacing indications. This review discusses the rationale for S-ICDs by reviewing studies including the PRAETORIAN, PAS, and UNTOUCHED trials.

The potential impact of acute coronary syndromes on automatic sensing system in Subcutaneous-ICDs

BACKGROUND

The Subcutaneous-ICD (S-ICD) is emerging as a suitable option for most ICD candidates, however some open issues regarding the sensing algorithm still remain.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to examine the performance of the S-ICD sensing algorithm in patients hospitalized for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) or chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), before and after revascularization.

METHODS

We performed a S-ICD automated screening on 75 patients, 21 hospitalized for STEMI, 23 for NSTE-ACS and 31 for CCS, before and after percutaneous revascularization, regardless their eligibility to ICD implantation.

RESULTS

Patients did not differ in clinical, electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters. Rates of screening pass were significantly lower in STEMI patients compared to NSTE-ACS and CCS (5% vs 56.7% vs 81% respectively, p < .0001). The viability of the primary vector was lower in STEMI patients compared to NSTE-ACS and CCS (33% vs 56% vs 71%, p .027 respectively). After revascularization, there were no more significant differences between groups. Pairing subjects at baseline and after revascularization, STEMI subjects percentages of screening success were respectively 5% and 81% (p < .001) and the rates of primary vector viability were 33% and 81% (p .002). STEMI was the only independent predictor of screening failure at multivariate logistic regression analysis (odds ratio 10.68 confidence interval 2.77-41.38, p = .001).

CONCLUSION

The performance of the S-ICD and possible malfunction detections in the context of an acute ischemic event deserve further evaluation. Adequate patient selection and the development of dynamic device programming are warranted.

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.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Therapy in Heart Failure

The population of patients with heart failure continues to grow, which introduced significant challenges in clinical practice related to the management of cardiac arrhythmia and advanced heart failure syndromes. Device therapy has increasingly become essential in the management of life-threatening arrhythmia and clinical heart failure in this population. This review will discuss the use of cardiac implantable electronic devices in heart failure with primary focus on sudden cardiac death prevention and cardiac resynchronization, including published evidence and evolving technologies.

Multicentre early experience with totally subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillators in Poland

INTRODUCTION

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) have a strong position in the prevention of sudden death. Nowadays, the most commonly used high-energy cardiac devices are transvenous ICDs. A new technology of totally subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICD) was invented and recently introduced into clinical practice in order to reduce lead-related complications of conventional ICDs. The aim of this paper is to present early experience with this new technology implemented in a few centres in Poland.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Medical records of patients who had S-ICD-related interventions in Poland were retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

During the first year of S-ICD introduction into the Polish health system 18 patients underwent surgery connected with S-ICDs. Majority of them (17 patients) were implanted de novo. In one patient surgical revision of a device implanted abroad was performed. Most of patients (78%) had S-ICDs implanted for secondary prevention. Inability of transvenous system implantation due to venous access obstruction or high risk of infection related with transvenous leads accounted for 83% of indications for S-ICD. Only in three patients were S-ICDs implanted due to young age and active mode of life. The implantations of S-ICDs were performed without important early or late complications. During follow-up one patient had episodes of ventricular arrhythmia successfully terminated with high-energy shocks. One patient died due to progression of heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

S-ICD implantation procedure has been successfully and safely introduced in Polish clinical routine. Nevertheless, despite clear indications in recent ESC guidelines, this therapy is not directly reimbursed in Poland and needs individual application for refund.

Multicentre experience with the second-generation subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator and the intermuscular two-incision implantation technique

INTRODUCTION

The recently developed second-generation subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) and the intermuscular two-incision implantation technique demonstrate potential favorable features that reduce inappropriate shocks and complications. However, data concerning large patient populations are lacking. The aim of this multicentre prospective study was to evaluate the safety and outcome of second-generation S-ICD using the intermuscular two-incision technique in a large population study.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study population included 101 consecutive patients (75% male; mean age, 45 ± 13 years) who received second-generation S-ICD (EMBLEM; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) implantation using the intermuscular two-incision technique as an alternative to the standard implantation technique. Twenty nine (29%) patients were implanted for secondary prevention. Twenty four (24%) patients had a previously implanted transvenous ICD. All patients were implanted without any procedure-related complications. Defibrillation testing was performed in 80 (79%) patients, and ventricular tachycardia was successfully converted at less than or equal to 65 J in 98.75% (79/80) of patients without pulse generator adjustments. During a median follow-up of 21 ± 10 months, no complications requiring surgical revision or local or systemic device-related infections were observed. Ten patients (9.9%) received appropriate and successful shocks for ventricular arrhythmias. Three (2.9%) patients experienced inappropriate shocks due to oversensing the cardiac signal (n = 1), noncardiac signal (n = 1), and a combination of both cardiac and noncardiac signals (n = 1), with one patient requiring device explantation. No patients required device explantation due to antitachycardia pacing indications.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our multicentre study, second-generation S-ICD implanted with the intermuscular two-incision technique is an available safe combination and appears to be associated with a low risk of complications, such as inappropriate shocks.

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.

Safety and Efficacy of Subcutaneous Cardioverter Defibrillator in Patients at High Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death - Primary Japanese Experience

BACKGROUND

The entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) was introduced as a new alternative to conventional transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) in Japan in February 2016, but its safety and efficacy are unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 60 patients (48 men, median age, 60 years; IQR, 44-67 years; primary prevention, n=24) underwent S-ICD implantation between February 2016 and August 2017. The device pocket was formed in the intermuscular space between the serratus anterior muscle and the latissimus dorsi muscle, and the parasternal S-ICD lead was placed according to pre-implant screening. Defibrillation test was performed in 56 patients (93%). Ventricular fibrillation (VF) was induced in 55 patients and terminated by a single 65-J shock in all patients. The median time to shock therapy was 13.4 s (IQR, 12.1-14.9 s) and the median post-shock impedance of the S-ICD lead was 64 Ω (IQR, 58-77 Ω). There were no operation-related complications or subsequent infectious complications. During follow-up (median, 275 days; IQR, 107-421 days), 1 patient (1.7%) had appropriate shock for VF with successful termination, whereas 5 patients (8.3%) had inappropriate shock due to oversensing of myopotential (n=3) or T-wave (n=1), and detection of supraventricular tachycardia (n=1).

CONCLUSIONS

S-ICD is a safe and effective alternative to conventional TV-ICD. The long-term safety and efficacy of the S-ICD need further investigation.

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 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: A tertiary center experience

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to evaluate subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) patients with regard to underlying etiology, peri-procedural outcome, appropriate/inappropriate shocks, and complications during follow-up.

METHODS

All patients who underwent S-ICD implantation from February 2013 to March 2017 at an academic hospital in Vienna were included. Medical records were examined and follow-up interrogations of devices were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 79 S-ICD patients (58.2% males) with a mean age of 44.5 ± 17.2 years were followed for a mean duration of 12.8 ± 13.7 months. A majority of patients (58.2%) had S-ICD for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. The most common of the 16 underlying etiologies were ischemic cardiomyopathy, non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, and idiopathic ventricular fibrillation. The lead was implanted to the left sternal border in 96.2% of cases, between muscular layers in 72.2%. Mean implant time was 45 min, 3 patients were induced, and all patients except one were programmed to two zones. Six (7.6%) patients experienced at least one appropriate therapy for ventricular arrhythmias and the time to first event ranged from 1 to 52 months. Seven patients experienced inappropriate shocks due to T-wave oversensing, atrial tachycardia with rapid atrioventricular conduction, external electromagnetic interference, and/or baseline oversensing due to lead movement. Four patients underwent revision for lead repositioning (n = 1), loose device suture (n = 1), and infection (n = 2).

CONCLUSIONS

While S-ICDs are a feasible and effective treatment, issues remain with inappropriate shock and infection.

Initial experience with the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator with the real costs of hospitalization analysis in a single Polish center

BACKGROUND

The recent introduction of an entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibril-lator (S-ICD) represents an important progress in the defibrillation technology towards a less invasive approach. This is a single-center observational study of S-ICD implantations in Poland.

METHODS

The S-ICD was implanted in 11 patients with standard indications for an ICD. Patients in whom the device was implanted were evaluated for adverse events and device function at hospital discharge. All hospitalization costs were calculated and summed up for all patients. Costs were divided into following categories: medical materials, pharmaceuticals, operating theatre staff, cardiology depart-ment staff, laboratory tests, non-laboratory tests and additional non-medical costs.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 51.6 ± 16.4 years, 9 were men and 2 were women. Four pa-tients had atrial fibrillation as the basal rhythm, 1 patient had atrial flutter and 6 patients had sinus rhythm. All patients had at least one condition that precluded the use of a traditional ICD system or the S-ICD was preferred due to other conditions, i.e. a history complicated transvenous ICD therapy (18%), anticipated higher risk of infection (27%), lack or difficult vascular access (18%), young age and anticipated high cumulated risk of lifetime device therapy (36%). The mean duration of the im-plantation procedure was 2 h. One patient developed a postoperative pocket hematoma. Mean total time of hospitalization was 28 (6-92) days. Average cost of hospitalization per patient was 21,014.29 EUR (minimal = 19,332.71 EUR and maximal = 24,824.14 EUR).

CONCLUSIONS

S-ICD implantation appears to provide a viable alternative to transvenous ICD, espe-cially for patients without pacing requirements.

The Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: New Insights and Expanding Populations

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have become a mainstay of treatment in patients at risk for sudden cardiac death. The majority of contemporary ICDs are implanted transvenously; however, this approach carries acute procedural and long-term risks. The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) was developed, in part, to circumvent some of these adverse events or as an alternative option in patients unable to undergo transvenous implantation. Early promising trials evaluating the S-ICD were small and focused on niche populations. More recently, larger trials included broader populations with worse heart failure and co-morbidities that may be more representative of typical ICD recipients. These studies have consistently demonstrated positive results. This review describes the S-ICD system, implantation, and the safety and efficacy of the device.

Is shock impedance value alone to be considered a good predictor for shock efficacy in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator?

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) is easy to implant, with poor risks of the patient. However, fat is a poor current conductor and increases defibrillation threshold. As shock impedance alone should not be considered a good efficacy predictor of an S-ICD system, an X-ray latero-lateral view for lead position should be achieved.

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators Implantation Without Defibrillation Threshold Testing: A Single Center Experience

Background

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) system has been proven to be an effective therapy for prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in selected patients. Although the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation (SIMPLE) trial has shown that defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing is not necessary for transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) systems, it is still recommended for S-ICD systems. We aimed to study the efficacy and safety of S-ICD implantation without DFT in our Heart Center with the comparison of S-ICD patients’ outcome to those with a single chamber TV-ICD without DFT in the same period.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patients underwent S-ICD without DFT from December 2014 to May 2016 with the comparison to single chamber TV-ICD patients implanted during the same period.

Results

Thirty consecutive patients (23 males (76.7%); mean age 41 ± 13 years; mean left ventricular ejection fraction 30±12%) received a S-ICD for primary (25 patients, 83.3%) or secondary prevention (five patients, 16.7%) of SCD. During a mean follow-up of 710.6 ± 190 days, three patients received 38 appropriate ICD shocks (90.5%), and two patients received four inappropriate shocks (9.5%). There were two mortalities (6.7%): one cardiac and one non-cardiac. When compared to 30 consecutive who received a single chamber TV-ICD during the same period, there was no significant difference in mortality.

Conclusions

Implantation of S-ICD using intermuscular approach without DFT seems to be safe and effective. Data from large S-ICD registries with long-term follow-up, and preferably randomized controlled studies, are needed to confirm this finding.

Acute and Long-term Results After Contemporary Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Implantation: A Single-center Experience

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has emerged as an alternative to the transvenous defibrillator. The incidence of complications is similar, with inappropriate shocks (IS) being more frequent than those occurring with contemporary programming of transvenous defibrillators. Several improvements have been implemented after the S-ICD was approved for use in Europe in 2009. This study reports the results of S-ICD use in a single center, whose experience began late, at the end of 2013.

METHODS

Prospective observational study including consecutive patients with defibrillator indication and no indication for either permanent pacing or cardiac resynchronization who underwent S-ICD implantation. Implant data and long-term follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

An S-ICD was implanted in 50 patients who were deemed suitable after electrocardiographic screening. The mean age was 46.9±15 (range, 15-78) years and 72% were male. Thirty eight percent had left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35%. The most frequent heart disease was ischemic heart disease (34%), followed by hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (18%). The intermuscular technique was used, with 3 incisions in 10% and 2 incisions in the remaining 90%. Ventricular fibrillation was induced in 49 patients, with 100% effectiveness in their conversion. After a mean follow-up of 18.1 (range, 2.3-44.8) months, there were no late complications requiring surgical revision, the rate of IS was 0%, and 1 patient (2%) experienced appropriate shocks.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in technology, implant technique and device programming, along with appropriate patient selection, have led to outstanding acute and long-term results, especially regarding the absence of both IS and complications requiring surgical revision.

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.

Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (MADIT S-ICD): Design and clinical protocol

Patients with diabetes mellitus, prior myocardial infarction, older age, and a relatively preserved left ventricular ejection fraction remain at risk for sudden cardiac death that is potentially amenable by the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator with a good risk-benefit profile. The launched MADIT S-ICD study is designed to test the hypothesis that post-myocardial infarction diabetes patients with relatively preserved ejection fraction of 36%-50% will have a survival benefit from a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

The subcutaneous ICD as an alternative to the conventional ICD system: Initial experience in Greece and a review of the literature

The introduction of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in clinical practice has revolutionized our therapeutic approach for both primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD), as it has proven to be superior to medical therapy in treating potentially life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias and has resulted in reduced mortality rates. However, implantation of a conventional ICD carries a non-negligible risk of periprocedural and long-term complications associated with the transvenous ICD leads. The entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) has recently emerged as a therapeutic alternative to the conventional ICD for patients with various cardiopathies and who are at high risk of SCD. The main advantage is the avoidance of vascular access and thus avoidance of complications associated with transvenous leads. Patients without pacing indications, such as bradycardia, a need for antitachycardia pacing or cardiac resynchronization, as well as those at higher risk of complications from transvenous lead implantation are perfect candidates for this novel technology. The subcutaneous ICD has proven to be equally safe and effective compared to transvenous ICD systems in early clinical trials. Further technical improvements of the system will likely lead to the expansion of indications and widespread use of this technology. In the present review, we discuss the indications for this system, summarize early clinical experiences and highlight the advantages and disadvantages of this novel technology. In addition, we present the first two cases of subcutaneous cardioverter defibrillator system implantation in Greece.

Complete right bundle branch block and QRS-T discordance can be the initial clue to detect S-ICD ineligibility

BACKGROUND

In order to minimize inappropriate shocks of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICD), it is important to recognize who is suitable for S-ICD indication. This study aimed to clarify what types of cardiac disease are likely to fulfill the S-ICD screening criteria and ineligible factors for S-ICD in the standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG).

METHODS

A total of 348 patients with heart disease were enrolled. They were assessed by supine and standing ECG recording to simulate the 3 S-ICD sensing vectors and standard 12-lead ECG, simultaneously. Clinical and ECG characteristics were analyzed to compare the patients who are eligible and ineligible with S-ICD screening ECG indication.

RESULTS

The mean age of study patients was 49±21 years and 244 (70%) were men. Nineteen percent of patients were unsuitable for S-ICD. There was no significant difference in ineligibility for S-ICD among cardiac diseases (p=0.48). Univariate analysis showed complete right bundle branch block (CRBBB), QRS-T discordance in lead II, and QRS-T discordance in 3 leads (I, II, and aVF) were more frequent in patients who were ineligible for S-ICD than in the eligible group. Multivariate regression analysis showed CRBBB and QRS-T discordance in 3 leads were independent predictors for ineligibility of S-ICD.

CONCLUSION

There are no differences in eligibility of S-ICD among types of cardiac diseases. CRBBB and QRS-T discordance were independent predictors for ineligibility.

Leadless Cardiac Devices-Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

OPINION STATEMENT

Since the initial introduction of pacemakers and defibrillators, the rapid growth in microcircuit and battery technology has increased the longevity demands and exposed the vulnerabilities of transvenous leads. Over a half of century later, leadless pacemaker and defibrillation systems are just reaching the clinical arena. Despite the remarkable advantages of leadless pacing systems, the data are still quite limited and broad implementation of these technologies need to occur in a cautious and deliberate fashion as the peri-procedural risks remains high. Two of the three systems, Nanostim(TM) (St. Jude Medical) and Micra Transcatheter Pacing System (Medtronic Inc.), have shown the greatest applicability, although they are currently only limited to single chamber pacing and procedural risks are modest. The WiCS(TM)-LV system (EBR Systems, Inc.) is anatomically limited and benefits a small subset of patients. Leadless implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy, the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD, Cameron Health/Boston Scientific), has demonstrated encouraging short-term safety and efficacy data supporting its use. Since its introduction, modifications to the implant procedure, pre-screening of patients, and programming of the devices have reduced procedural-related complications and inappropriate shocks. The S-ICD is a promising technology, but it is premature to conclude that it will supplant conventional ICDs. At this current time, the S-ICD may benefit select patients, such as those with recurrent bacteremia, vascular access limitations, and who may be prone to transvenous lead failure.

Right Parasternal Lead Placement Increases Eligibility for Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) provides an attractive option for patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) in whom a transvenous defibrillator is contraindicated. Given the unusual cardiac anatomy and repolarization strain, the surface electrocardiogram (ECG) is frequently abnormal, potentially increasing the screen failure rate.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We prospectively screened 100 adult CHD patients regardless of the presence of clinical indication for ICD utilizing a standard left sternal lead placement, as well as a right parasternal position. Baseline patient and 12-lead ECG characteristics were examined to assess for predictors of screen failure. Average patient age was 48±14 years, average QRS duration was 134±37 ms, and 13 patients were pacemaker dependent. Using the standard left parasternal electrode position, 21 patients failed screening. Of these 21 patients with screen failure, 9 passed screening with the use of right parasternal electrode positioning, reducing screening failure rate from 21% to 12%. QT interval and inverted T wave anywhere in V2-V6 leads were found to be independent predictors of left parasternal screening failure (P=0.01 and P=0.04, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of both left and right parasternal screening should be used in evaluation of CHD patients for S-ICD eligibility. ECG repolarization characteristics were also identified as novel predictors of screening failure in this group. (Circ J 2016; 80: 1328-1335).

Intraoperative Defibrillation Testing of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Systems-A Simple Issue?

Background

The results of the recently published randomized SIMPLE trial question the role of routine intraoperative defibrillation testing. However, testing is still recommended during implantation of the entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD) system. To address the question of whether defibrillation testing in S‐ICD systems is still necessary, we analyzed the data of a large, standard‐of‐care prospective single‐center S‐ICD registry.

Methods and Results

In the present study, 102 consecutive patients received an S‐ICD for primary (n=50) or secondary prevention (n=52). Defibrillation testing was performed in all except 4 patients. In 74 (75%; 95% CI 0.66–0.83) of 98 patients, ventricular fibrillation was effectively terminated by the first programmed internal shock. In 24 (25%; 95% CI 0.22–0.44) of 98 patients, the first internal shock was ineffective and further internal or external shock deliveries were required. In these patients, programming to reversed shock polarity (n=14) or repositioning of the sensing lead (n=1) or the pulse generator (n=5) led to successful defibrillation. In 4 patients, a safety margin of <10 J was not attained. Nevertheless, in these 4 patients, ventricular arrhythmias were effectively terminated with an internal 80‐J shock.

Conclusions

Although it has been shown that defibrillation testing is not necessary in transvenous ICD systems, it seems particular important for S‐ICD systems, because in nearly 25% of the cases the primary intraoperative test was not successful. In most cases, a successful defibrillation could be achieved by changing shock polarity or by optimizing the shock vector caused by the pulse generator or lead repositioning.

Clinical and electrocardiographic predictors of T wave oversensing in patients with subcutaneous ICD

BACKGROUND

T wave oversensing (TWOS) is a major drawback of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD). Data on predictors of TWOS in S-ICD recipients are limited. We sought to investigate predictors of TWOS in a cohort of patients receiving an S-ICD at our institution.

METHODS

S-ICD recipients at our center were identified retrospectively and stratified based on the presence or absence of TWOS. Clinical and electrocardiographic parameters were collected and compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients underwent an S-ICD implantation at our institution between April 2010 and January 2015. Six (6.5%) patients had TWOS. These patients were younger (38.1±13.7 vs. 52.3±16.1 years, p=0.04) and had higher left ventricle ejection fractions (48.5±14.9% vs. 28.4±12.2%, p<0.01) than patients without a history of TWOS. Baseline 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters were not different between the 2 groups. Leads I, II, and avF (which mimic the sensing vectors of the S-ICD) were further inspected to identify ECG characteristics that could predict TWOS. The QRS amplitude in ECG lead I was significantly smaller in the TWOS group than in the non-TWOS group (3.7 vs. 7.4 mV, p=0.02).

CONCLUSION

In this study, younger age, higher ejection fraction, and lower QRS amplitude were associated with TWOS. These findings could help identify patients referred for S-ICD at high-risk of TWOS.

[ESC guidelines 2015 for ventricular arrhythmias and prevention of sudden cardiac death. What is new?]

The new European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmia and the prevention of sudden cardiac death, recently published at the annual ESC meeting in London, contain an extensive update of the recommendations for the diagnostics, drug therapy, interventional and device therapy of ventricular arrhythmia. The new recommendations for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) treatment for primary and secondary prophylaxis of sudden cardiac death can be seen as a focused update of the previously published guidelines. Pre-existing recommendations for catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias have been partly extensively expanded with respect to the results of recent clinical trials. The guideline committee also adapted their recommendations regarding the hereditary arrhythmia syndromes to the 2013 consensus report of the American Heart Association (AHA), the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS).

The Entirely Subcutaneous Defibrillator - A New Generation and Future Expectations

Although conventional implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have proved effective in the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD), they still appear to be limited by non-trivial acute and long-term complications. The recent advent of an entirely subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) represents a further step in the evolution of defibrillation technology towards a less-invasive approach. This review highlights some historical and current issues concerning the S-ICD that may offer a viable therapeutic option in selected patients at high risk of SCD and in whom pacing is not required. After the CE Mark and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals, the S-ICD is being implanted worldwide with growing clinical data regarding its safety and efficacy (the EFFORTLESS Registry). The recently developed new generation of S-ICD (EMBLEM, Boston Scientific) demonstrates favourable features including a smaller device, longer longevity and remote-monitoring compatibility. Further innovations in the S-ICD system and potential integration with leadless pacing may play an important role in defibrillation therapy and prevention of SCD in the near future.