Predictors of Elevated Defibrillation Threshold with the Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator

Efficacy and safety of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with and without obesity: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has emerged as an alternative to transvenous systems for prevention of sudden cardiac death. However, concerns have been raised regarding its efficacy and safety in obese individuals.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the S-ICD in patients with obesity by assessing the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of multiple databases was conducted for English-language peer-reviewed studies reporting clinical outcomes in S-ICD recipients with (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and without obesity (BMI <30 kg/m2). Data on preimplantation screening failure, defibrillation testing, complications, appropriate and inappropriate shocks, and survival were analyzed using standard, random-effects, meta-analytical techniques.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies involving 20,486 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference in mean BMI values of patients with failed or successful preimplantation screening (mean difference -0.60 kg/m2; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.06 to 0.86). Obesity was associated with higher rates of failed defibrillation testing at ≤65 J (odds ratio [OR] 2.16; 95% CI 1.39-3.35), and malpositioning/suboptimal positioning occurred more frequently in obese compared to nonobese patients (OR 3.37; 95% CI 1.76-6.44). Increased BMI as a continuous variable (per increase in 1 kg/m2 BMI) was associated with elevated defibrillation thresholds (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.03-1.08); higher risk of complications (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.05); a trend toward an increased number of appropriate shocks (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.04); and no significant increase in the risk of inappropriate shocks (HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.99-1.03).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis underscores the importance of considering obesity in S-ICD implantation decisions. Although S-ICD remains effective in obese patients, attention to potential technical challenges and higher complication rates is warranted.

A case of pioneering subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator intervention in Timothy syndrome

This case report presents a notable instance of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation in a 9-year-old patient diagnosed with Timothy syndrome (TS), which is a rare condition characterized by mutations in the CACNA1c gene. Conventional therapies often have limited efficacy in managing TS. This case is significant, as it represents the youngest age for S-ICD implantation recorded in mainland China. While the absence of ventricular arrhythmias during hospitalization and follow-up is encouraging, it is not sufficient to conclusively establish the safety and feasibility of this intervention in young TS patients. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term outcomes and to consider S-ICD as a potential standard treatment option for TS. Additionally, there is a need for a more detailed exploration of the molecular mechanisms underlying gene therapy and personalized interventions.

A manual synchronous low energy shock impedance as a predictor of successful defibrillation testing during subcutaneous ICD implantation

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend defibrillation testing (DFT) during subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation. Implant position, patient characteristics and device factors, such as shock impedance, influence defibrillation success. To evaluate the shock impedance, a manual synchronous 10J shock (low energy synchronous shock [LESS]) can be delivered, without the need to induce ventricular fibrillation (VF).

OBJECTIVE

To compare LESS and DFT impedance values and to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of LESS impedance for predicting a successful DFT during S-ICD implantation.

METHODS

Consecutive S-ICD implantations were included. Shock impedances were compared by paired t-tests. Univariate analysis was performed to investigate factors associated with successful DFT. A prediction model of successful DFT based on LESS impedance was assessed by logistic regression. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, area under the ROC curve and the Hosmer-Lemeshow tests were used to evaluate the accuracy of LESS impedance.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were included (52 ± 14 years; 69% male). LESS and DFT impedance values were highly correlated (r2 = 0.97, p < .01). Patients with a failed first shock had higher body mass index (BMI) (30 ± 3 vs. 25.7 ± 4.3, p = .014), higher mean LESS (120 ± 35Ω vs. 86. ± 23Ω, p = .0013) and DFT impedance (122 ± 33Ω vs. 87 ± 24Ω, p = .0013). ROC analysis showed that LESS impedance had a good diagnostic performance in predicting a successful conversion test (AUC 84% [95% CI: 0.72-0.92]) with a cutoff value of <94Ω to identify a successful DFT (sensitivity 71%, specificity 73%).

CONCLUSION

LESS impedance values without the need to induce VF can intraoperatively predict a successful DFT.

Defibrillation threshold in elective subcutaneous implantable defibrillator generator replacements: Time to reduce the size of the pulse generator?

INTRODUCTION

The first step-down defibrillation studies in the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) described a defibrillation threshold (DFT) of 32.5 ± 17.0 J and 36.6 ± 19.8 J. Therefore, the default shock output of the S-ICD was set at 80 J. In de novo implants, the DFT is lower in optimally positioned S-ICDs. However, a retrospective analysis raised concerns about a high DFT in S-ICD replacements, possibly related to fibrosis.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to find the DFT in patients undergoing S-ICD generator replacement.

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled patients who underwent S-ICD generator replacement with subsequent defibrillation testing. A pre-specified defibrillation testing protocol was used to determine the DFT, defined as the lowest shock output that effectively terminated the induced ventricular arrhythmia.

RESULTS

A total of 45 patients were enrolled, 6.0 ± 2.1 years after initial implant. Mean DFT during replacement in the total cohort was 27.4 ± 14.3 J. In patients with a body mass index (BMI) 18.5-25 kg/m2 (N = 22, BMI 22.5 ± 1.6), median DFT was 20 J (IQR 17.5-30). In 18/22 patients, the DFT was ≤30 J and 5/22 patients were successfully defibrillated at 10 J. One patient with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy had a DFT of 65 J. In patients with a BMI >25 kg/m2 (N = 23, BMI 29.5 ± 4.2), median DFT was 30 J (IQR 20-40). In 15/23 patients, the DFT was ≤30 J and 4/23 patients had a successful defibrillation test at 10 J.

CONCLUSIONS

This study eases concerns about a high DFT after S-ICD generator replacement. The majority of patients had a DFT ≤30 J, regardless of BMI, suggesting that the shock output of the S-ICD could be safely reduced.

Patients with a high defibrillation threshold: Approaches to management

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have revolutionized the prognosis for patients at elevated risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. For safety, defibrillation should be effective with a minimum of 10 J below the device's maximum energy. While modern ICDs rarely deliver ineffective shocks in primary prevention, the surge in managing severe heart failure patients has led to an increased number of patients with high defibrillation thresholds (DFTs). This article elucidates the potential causes of high DFT, including clinical factors, lead and device placement, the presence of a Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD), prolonged ventricular arrhythmias, shock vectors, waveform tilt, medications, and manufacturer-specific options. We also detail management strategies, highlighting alternative shock coil placements, practical recommendations, and case studies from our institution. Our management algorithm suggests addressing preventable causes, re-evaluating coil positions, considering non-invasive system modifications, upgrading to a higher-capacity device, and adding extra coil(s).

S-ICD Implantation "Tips and Tricks"

An implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was developed to provide protection against sudden cardiac death. Despite being effective in terminating ventricular arrhythmias, traditional transvenous ICDs appeared over time to have certain limitations related to the need for vascular access and the presence of foreign material inside the circulatory system (namely lead failure and infections). A subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) was developed to overcome those limitations and to provide prevention against sudden cardiac death from outside the cardiovascular system. Utilization of that modern method of treatment is constantly increasing worldwide, and new centers incorporate implantation of that system in their portfolio. This review aims to present the most relevant issues related to S-ICD implantation procedure, based on experience of the authors and an extensive literature search.

Propofol dose and efficacy of defibrillation testing during implantation of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: A retrospective, single center cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Defibrillation testing (DFT) is recommended during subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation. Previous studies analyzing the potential interference of propofol with defibrillation threshold are inconsistent. The purpose of this study was to analyze whether propofol affects DFT post S-ICD placement.

METHODS

All patients with S-ICD implantation between 01/2017 and 11/2020 at the University Heart Center Freiburg were retrospectively analyzed. Two groups were generated depending on the success of the first shock during DFT. Implantation characteristics and dose of anesthetics were analyzed.

RESULTS

In 12 of the included 80 (15%) patients, first shock during DFT failed. The absolute dose of propofol was significantly higher in patients with first shock failure (median 653 mg [IQR 503-855]) compared to patients with first shock termination (376 mg [200-600]; p = 0.027). Doses of opioids and midazolam as well as type of anesthesia did not differ between the groups. A multivariable binary logistic regression analysis confirmed an independent association of first shock termination and propofol dose (per 100 mg: OR 0.73 (95% CI: 0.56-0.95); p = 0.021).

CONCLUSION

There is an independent association of propofol dose and first shock failure in routine S-ICD defibrillation testing.

Real-Life Inter-Rater Variability of the PRAETORIAN Score Values

(1) Background: The PRAETORIAN score is a tool developed for postoperative evaluation of the position of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems. The aim of our study was to evaluate the real-life inter-rater variability of the PRAETORIAN score, based on chest radiographs of S-ICD patients reviewed by independent clinical raters. (2) Methods: Postoperative chest X-rays of patients that underwent S-ICD implantation were evaluated by five clinical raters who gave values of the PRAETORIAN score. Ratings were then compared in a fully crossed manner to determine the inter-rater variability of the attributed scores. (3) Results: In total, 87 patients were included in the study. In the case of the most important final risk category of the PRAETORIAN score, the mean Light's kappa was 0.804, the Fleiss' kappa was 0.249, and the intraclass correlation was 0.38. The final risk category was identically determined by all five raters in 75.86% of patients, by four raters in 14.94%, and by three raters in 9.20% of patients. (4) Conclusions: The overall inter-rater variability of the PRAETORIAN score in a group of electrophysiologists experienced in S-ICD implantation, yet previously naive to the PRAETORIAN score, and self-trained in its utilization, was only modest in our study. Appropriate use of the score might require training of clinical raters.

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.

Complications related to elective generator replacement of the subcutaneous implantable defibrillator

Aims

To guarantee uninterrupted function of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD), the pulse generator needs to be surgically replaced before the battery is depleted. The risks related to this replacement substantially impact long-term outcome for S-ICD recipients, as the majority will undergo one or several of these procedures in their lifetime. We aim to describe the procedural characteristics of the replacement procedure and to provide an insight in the complications associated with these replacements.

Methods and results

In this retrospective analysis, data from replacement procedures and follow-up visits were collected from all patients who underwent elective S-ICD generator replacement in our tertiary centre from June 2014 until November 2019. Original device position was assessed using the PRAETORIAN score. Complications were defined as those requiring surgical intervention, systemic antibiotic treatment, or device extraction. Seventy-two patients were included, with a median follow-up of 1.9 years (IQR 0.6–3.3 years) after replacement. Battery depletion occurred after 5.9 ± 0.7 years. The pulse generator was repositioned in patients with a PRAETORIAN score ≥90 to minimize the defibrillation threshold. Although there was an increase in impedance compared to the implant procedure, first shock conversion rate during defibrillation testing was 91.4% with a success rate of 100% after multiple attempts. Two patients developed a complication after, respectively, 9 and 21 months, resulting in a complication rate of 1.4% per year.

Conclusion

With a median follow-up of 1.9 years, this study shows a low complication rate after S-ICD replacement, with a first shock conversion rate of 91.4%.

Acute shock efficacy of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator according to the implantation technique

BACKGROUND

The traditional technique for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation involves three incisions and a subcutaneous (SC) pocket. An intermuscular (IM) 2-incision technique has been recently adopted.

AIMS

We assessed acute defibrillation efficacy (DE) of S-ICD (DE ≤65 J) according to the implantation technique.

METHODS

We analyzed consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD implantation and DE testing at 53 Italian centers. Regression analysis was used to determine the association between DFT and implantation technique.

RESULTS

A total of 805 patients were enrolled. Four groups were assessed: IM + 2 incisions (n = 546), SC + 2 incisions (n = 133), SC + 3 incisions (n = 111), and IM + 3 incisions (n = 15). DE was ≤65 J in 782 (97.1%) patients. Patients with DE ≤65 J showed a trend towards lower body mass index (25.1 vs. 26.5; p = .12), were less frequently on antiarrhythmic drugs (13% vs. 26%; p = .06) and more commonly underwent implantation with the 2-incision technique (85% vs. 70%; p = .04). The IM + 2-incision technique showed the lowest defibrillation failure rate (2.2%) and shock impedance (66 Ohm, interquartile range: 57-77). On multivariate analysis, the 2-incision technique was associated with a lower incidence of shock failure (hazard ratio: 0.305; 95% confidence interval: 0.102-0.907; p = .033). Shock impedance was lower with the IM than with the SC approach (66 vs. 70 Ohm p = .002) and with the 2-incision than the 3-incision technique (67 vs. 72 Ohm; p = .006).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large population of S-ICD patients, we observed a high defibrillation success rate. The IM + 2-incision technique provides lower shock impedance and a higher likelihood of successful defibrillation.

Is 40 Joules Enough to Successfully Defibrillate With Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators?

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the efficacy of conversion test performed at 40 J (defibrillation margin ≥40 J), and factors potentially associated with test failure were identified.

BACKGROUND

Current subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) devices deliver a maximum of 80 J. Functional defibrillation testing is recommended at S-ICD implantation, and it is usually conducted by delivering a shock energy of 65 J to ensure a safety defibrillation margin ≥15 J. Although high rates of successful conversion were reported at 65 J, limited data exist on the defibrillation margin extent.

METHODS

Ventricular fibrillation was induced and conversion test was performed by delivering a 40-J shock in 308 patients. Success was defined as termination of ventricular fibrillation by the first shock delivered in standard polarity. The S-ICD system positioning was evaluated with the PRAETORIAN score using bidirectional chest X-rays.

RESULTS

The generator was positioned in an intermuscular pocket in 301 patients (98%) and the lead was implanted by means of a 2-incision technique. The PRAETORIAN score was <90 (low risk of conversion failure) in 293 (95%) patients. Overall, ventricular fibrillation termination occurred in 259 (84%) patients with 40 J. Male gender (odds ratio [OR]: 3.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09 to 13.14; p = 0.036), body mass index (OR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.19; p = 0.036), dilated cardiomyopathy with reduced ejection fraction (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.87; p = 0.019), and PRAETORIAN score >50 (OR: 2.93; 95% CI: 1.26 to 6.83; p = 0.013) were independently associated with conversion failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors showed a high rate of defibrillation success with 40-J shocks in S-ICD systems implanted by means of modern surgical techniques. The variables associated with shock failure were male gender, higher body mass index, and suboptimal device position according to the PRAETORIAN score.

Defibrillation testing during implantation of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: a necessary standard or becoming redundant?

Since the publication of the SIMPLE and NORDIC trials, defibrillation testing (DFT) is rarely performed during routine implantation of transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). However, the results of these trials cannot be extrapolated to the later introduced subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) and a class I recommendation to perform DFT during the implantation of these devices remains in the current guidelines. Due to the high conversion success rate of DFT on one hand, and the risk of complications on the other, a significant number of physicians omit DFT in S‑ICD recipients. Several retrospective analyses have assessed the safety of the omission of DFT and report contradicting results and recommendations. It is known that implant position, as well as device factors and patient characteristics, influence defibrillation success. A better comprehension of these factors and their relationship could lead to more reliable and safer alternatives to DFT. An ongoing randomised clinical trial, which is expected to end in 2023, is the first study to implement a method that assesses implant position to identify patients who are likely to fail their DFT.

Successful defibrillation verification in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients by low-energy shocks

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to the transvenous one. Defibrillation efficacy depends on maximum device output and on the optimal device location at device implantation.

HYPOTHESIS

We sought to investigate the defibrillation safety margin in real life clinical practice.

METHODS

We sought to understand what is the efficacy of induced ventricular fibrillation (VF) termination at S-ICD implantation using lower energies than the recommended 65 J.

RESULTS

Sixty-four consecutive S-ICD recipients underwent VF termination attempts at implantation with energies ranging from 20 to 50 J. Overall, VF termination occurred in 84% of patients with ≤40 J, in 88% with 45 J, and in 100% with 60 J. Intermuscular S-ICD placement was associated with 94% VF termination at ≤40 J. An ejection fraction <35% was associated to higher energy requirement for defibrillation; however, an intermuscular S-ICD placement conferred 90% defibrillation efficacy at 31 ± 5 J in this patients subset.

CONCLUSIONS

This is a hypothesis-generating observation that prompts a methodologically correct investigation to prove that a 60 J output S-ICD can provide an adequate safety margin to terminate VF in clinical practice. This would enable superior device longevity and/or device downsizing for pediatric/small size patients.