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

[History of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in Germany]

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was a breakthrough in the prevention of sudden cardiac death. After years of technical development in the USA, Michel Mirowski succeeded in proving reliable automatic defibrillation of ventricular tachyarrhythmias through initial human implantations in 1980, despite many obstacles. Nearly 4 years later, the first patients received ICDs at multiple centers in Germany. Subsequently, outside the USA, Germany became the country with highest implantation rates. The absolute number of implantations remained small as long as implantations required epicardial defibrillation electrodes and therefore thoracotomy by cardiac surgeons. Pacemaker-like implantation using a transvenous defibrillation electrode with a pectoral ICD became feasible in the early 1990s pushing implantation rates to the next level. Technical advancements were accompanied by clinical research in Germany, and often, the first-in-human studies were conducted in Germany. In 1991, the first guidelines for indications were established in the USA and Germany. Several randomized studies on indications were published between 1996 and 2009, mostly led by American teams with German participation, but also under German leadership (CASH, CAT, DINAMIT, IRIS). The DANISH study in 2016 questioned the results of these long-standing studies. Instead of providing ICDs to patients using a broad indication, future efforts aim to identify patients who, despite optimal medical therapy, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and/or catheter ablation, need protection against sudden cardiac death. Risk scores incorporating myocardial scars in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and genetic information are expected to contribute to more individualized and effective indications.

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

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

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Pediatrics and Congenital Heart Disease

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

Lead-associated Superior Vena Cava Syndrome

Superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome is a rare complication associated with transvenous cardiac implantable electronic devices that may present with a variety of manifestations. Various strategies such as transvenous lead extraction, anticoagulation, venoplasty, and stenting have been used to treat this condition, but the optimal management protocols have yet to be defined. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (S-ICD) therapy can be an alternative option to a transvenous system for those who require future ICD surveillance. We present a case of lead-associated SVC syndrome where thoracic venous congestion due to SVC obstruction influenced preimplant S-ICD QRS vector screening. Following treatment of venous obstruction, QRS amplitude may change and patients who were not initially S-ICD candidates may later become eligible.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

[Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator : Current status and perspectives]

The use of transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) for the prevention of sudden cardiac death has been proven in numerous randomized trials. By using a totally subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) system, it is expected to ensure appropriate protection while avoiding long-term complications associated with transvenous leads, such as systemic infection and electrode dysfunction. Meanwhile, the safety and effectiveness of the S‑ICD has been substantiated by results of large registry studies. Based on the missing option for ventricular stimulation, corresponding recommendations have been integrated into current guidelines for certain patient populations. In the future, the issue of inadequate shocks caused by oversensing may be solved using advanced screening tools and new detection algorithms. Furthermore, a combination of subcutaneous ICD and LCP (leadless cardiac pacer) seems realistic to enable antibradycardia and antitachycardia ventricular pacing.