Perioperative Safety and Early Patient and Device Outcomes Among Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantations : A Randomized, Multicenter Trial

Risk factors and outcomes associated with failed implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) deliver shocks to terminate ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) to reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death. Failure of ICD shocks to terminate VT/VF, even if not resulting in death immediately, may signal patients at high risk of adverse outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify predictors and outcomes associated with failed appropriate ICD shocks in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction with a primary prevention ICD.

METHODS

Our study cohort consisted of 5512 patients with an ICD or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator who were enrolled in the landmark Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trials and the Ranolazine in High-Risk Patients With Implanted Cardioverter-Defibrillator trial. Cox proportional hazards multivariate regression modeling was used to identify risk factors associated with the first occurrence of a failed ICD shock.

RESULTS

Through 3 years of follow-up, the Kaplan-Meier rate of appropriate ICD shocks for VT/VF was 14.6% and rate of at least 1 failed ICD shock for VT/VF was 3.1%. Baseline risk factors associated with failed ICD shocks included younger age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21 per 10 years younger age; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.42; P = .019), male sex (HR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.26-3.86; P = .006), and the occurrence of heart failure hospitalization after device implantation (HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.35-3.16; P = .001). Notably, the delivery of a successful ICD shock after device implantation was the most powerful risk factor for subsequent failed ICD shocks (HR, 6.72; 95% CI, 4.39-10.30; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Our study identifies simple clinical risk factors that may be used to risk stratify patients at risk of having a failed ICD shock.

ACC/AHA/ASE/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR 2025 Appropriate Use Criteria for Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators, Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy, and Pacing

This appropriate use criteria (AUC) document is developed by the American College of Cardiology along with key specialty and subspecialty societies. It provides a comprehensive review of common clinical scenarios where implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), cardiac contractility modulation, leadless pacing, and conduction system pacing therapies are frequently considered. The 335 clinical scenarios covered in this document address ICD indications including those related to secondary prevention, primary prevention, comorbidities, generator replacement at elective replacement indicator, dual-chamber, and totally subcutaneous ICDs, as well as device indications related to CRT, conduction system pacing, leadless pacing, cardiac contractility modulation, and ICD therapy in the setting of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs).

The indications (clinical scenarios) were derived from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines and results of studies examining device implantation. The indications in this document were developed by a multidisciplinary writing group and scored by a separate independent rating panel on a scale of 1 to 9 to designate care that is considered “Appropriate” (median 7 to 9), “May Be Appropriate” (median 4 to 6), and “Rarely Appropriate” (median 1 to 3). The final ratings reflect the median score of the 17 rating panel members.

In general, Appropriate designations were assigned to scenarios for which clinical trial evidence and/or clinical experience was available that supported device implantation. In contrast, scenarios for which clinical trial evidence was limited or device implantation seemed reasonable for extenuating or practical reasons were categorized as May Be Appropriate. Scenarios for which there were data showing harm, or no data were available, and medical judgment deemed device therapy was illadvised were categorized as Rarely Appropriate. For example, comorbidities including reduced life expectancy related to noncardiac conditions or severe cognitive dysfunction would negatively impact appropriateness ratings.

The appropriate use criteria for ICD, CRT, and pacing have the potential to enhance clinician decision making, healthcare delivery, and payment policy. Furthermore, recognition of clinical scenarios rated as May Be Appropriate facilitates the identification of areas where there may be gaps in evidence that would benefit from future research.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) has a long history of developing documents (eg, expert consensus decision pathways, health policy statements, AUC documents) to provide members with guidance on both clinical and nonclinical topics relevant to cardiovascular care. In most circumstances, these documents have been created to complement clinical practice guidelines and to inform clinicians about areas where evidence is new and evolving or where sufficient data are more limited. Despite this, numerous gaps persist, highlighting the need for more streamlined and efficient processes to implement best practices in patient care.

Central to the ACC’s strategic plan is the generation of actionable knowledge —a concept that places emphasis on making clinical information easier to consume, share, integrate, and update. To this end, the ACC has shifted from developing isolated documents to creating integrated “solution sets.” These are groups of closely related activities, policy, mobile applications, decision-support tools, and other resources necessary to transform care and/or improve heart health. Solution sets address key questions facing care teams and attempt to provide practical guidance to be applied at the point of care. They use both established and emerging methods to disseminate information for cardiovascular conditions and their related management. The success of solution sets rests firmly on their ability to have a measurable impact on the delivery of care. Because solution sets reflect current evidence and ongoing gaps in care, the associated tools will be refined across time to match changing evidence and member needs.

AUC represent a key component of solution sets. They consist of common clinical scenarios associated with given disease states and ratings that define when it is reasonable to perform testing or provide therapies and, importantly, when it is not. AUC methodology relies on content development work groups, which create patient scenarios, and independent rating panels that employ a modified Delphi process to rate the relevant options for testing and intervention as Appropriate, May Be Appropriate, or Rarely Appropriate. AUC should not replace clinician judgment and practice experience but should function as tools to improve patient care and health outcomes in a cost-effective manner.

I extend sincere gratitude to the writing group for their invaluable contributions to the development of this document’s structure and clinical scenarios; to the rating panelists—a distinguished group of professionals with diverse expertise—for their thoughtful deliberation of the merits of device implantation across various clinical contexts; and to the reviewers for their thoughtful evaluation of the clinical scenarios and evidence mapping. Additionally, I am grateful to the members of the Solution Set Oversight Committee, which provided insight and guidance, and to ACC staff members María Velásquez and Lara Gold, for their support in bringing this document to fruition.

Contemporary use of non transvenous ICD

Sudden cardiac death can be prevented by defibrillator therapy. Non transvenous ICD mitigates risks associated with transvenous ICD. In this review, we discuss different types of non-transvenous ICD, their use in current clinical practice, and their limitations.

Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillators in Young Patients: Arrhythmias, Complications, and Physical Activity

BACKGROUND

The safety of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) recipients who lead active lifestyles and engage in recreational sports is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the association between lifestyle and recreational sports and the occurrence of arrhythmia- and device-related complications, appropriate and inappropriate shocks in S-ICD recipients.

METHODS

We assessed a cohort of young-adult (15-65 years) S-ICD patients, evaluated their physical activity with IPAQ (International Physical Activity Questionnaire), and assessed the association between lifestyle and recreational sports on S-ICD safety and shocks.

RESULTS

We enrolled 602 S-ICD recipients (77% men; age, 46±14 years). According to the IPAQ, patients were categorized as inactive subjects (26.4%), moderately active subjects (45.2%), or highly active subjects (28.4%). Among moderately/highly active subjects, 163 (27.1%) were recreational athletes. During follow-up (47.3 [interquartile range, 27.0-67.6] months), 23 patients (3.8%) reached the safety end point of arrhythmia- or device-related complications, with moderately and highly active subjects showing in multivariate analysis similar incidence compared with inactive subjects (P=0.59 and P=0.83, respectively). Forty-four patients had 87 appropriate shocks. In multivariate analysis, moderately and highly active subjects showed a nonsignificantly lower incidence of appropriate shocks compared with inactive subjects (P=0.12 and P=0.11, respectively). Consistently, there was a nonsignificant lower incidence of appropriate shocks in athletes versus nonathletes (P=0.06). Thirty-nine patients had 46 inappropriate shocks. Moderately and highly active subjects had similar incidence of inappropriate shocks compared with inactive subjects (P=0.92 and P=0.88, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Young S-ICD patients often lead active lifestyles and participate in sports. Higher activity levels were not associated with increased implantable cardioverter defibrillator-related complications or increased risk of implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks.

The risk of failure of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy: from PRAETORIAN score to clinical practice

AIMS

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) is an alternative to traditional ICDs. The PRAETORIAN score, based on chest radiographs, has been validated to predict the probability of successful S-ICD defibrillation testing by assessing factors like fat thickness between the coil and sternum and generator placement. This study evaluated the correlation between the PRAETORIAN score and clinical characteristics, as well as implantation variables.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively analysed data from 1253 patients who had undergone implantation of an S-ICD across 33 centres. The intermuscular positioning of the pulse generator was adopted in all patients. Post-implantation posterior-anterior and lateral chest radiographs were analysed to calculate the PRAETORIAN score. A total of 95.7% of patients had a PRAETORIAN score < 90, indicative of a low risk of conversion failure. Body mass index (BMI) was the only independent predictor of a score ≥ 90, and all patients with BMI < 25 kg/m2 (normal weight or underweight) had a score < 90. The intermuscular positioning technique resulted in optimal posterior placement of the device in all patients and significant sub-generator fat in only 3% of cases. A shock impedance value > 88 Ohm enabled to detect a PRAETORIAN score ≥ 90 with 98% (95% CI 97-99%) negative predictive value.

CONCLUSION

In contemporary practice, the PRAETORIAN score can be simplified. By adopting an intermuscular approach, two of the three steps of the score-evaluating the adequate posterior positioning of the generator and measuring the sub-generator fat-become superfluous, and impedance may serve as a reliable surrogate of sub-coil fat thickness. Furthermore, our data suggest that for non-obese patients, a favourable PRAETORIAN score is assured, making the score evaluation potentially unnecessary.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ Identifier: NCT02275637.

Antithrombotic therapy and the risk of pocket hematoma after subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation

BACKGROUND

Little data exists regarding the optimal antithrombotic strategy during S-ICD implantation to prevent pocket hematomas. This study explores the association between perioperative antithrombotic management and the occurrence of pocket hematoma following S-ICD implantation.

METHODS

All patients who underwent de novo S-ICD implantation between February 2009 and January 2023 at Amsterdam UMC were included. Data was collected retrospectively from electronic patient records. Clinically significant pocket hematomas were defined as an accumulation of blood at the pocket site within 30 days after implantation.

RESULTS

A total of 347 patients were included of which 224 (64.6%) patients used antithrombotic therapy pre-implantation. The median age at implantation was 50 years (IQR 36-61 years), 33.4% of the patients were female, and the majority of implants were intermuscular (90.2%). A total of 18 patients (5.2%) developed a clinically significant pocket hematoma. There were significantly more pocket hematomas in patients with continued vitamin K antagonists (VKA) compared to patients with interrupted VKA (27.3% (6/22) vs. 4.3% (2/47), respectively, p = 0.01), and continuation of VKA was an independent predictor for pocket hematoma formation in the VKA group (p = 0.04). Moreover, continuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor was associated with significantly more pocket hematomas post-implantation compared to continuation of DAPT with clopidogrel (4/12 vs. 1/28, respectively, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Continuation of VKA during S-ICD implantation was associated with an increased risk of pocket hematoma formation compared to interruption of VKA. This supports the need for specific perioperative antithrombotic therapy guidelines for S-ICD implantations to reduce the risk of pocket hematomas.

Fifteen years of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: Where do we stand, and what will the future hold?

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has emerged as a feasible alternative to the transvenous ICD in the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients without indications for pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy. Since its introduction, numerous innovations have been made and clinical experience has been gained, leading to its adoption in current practice and preference in certain populations. Moreover, emerging technologies like the extravascular ICD and the combination of the S-ICD with the leadless pacemaker offer new possibilities for the future. These advancements underscore the evolving role of the S-ICD in management of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. This review outlines implantation considerations, patient selection, and troubleshooting advancements in the last 15 years and provides insights into future perspectives.

Device-specific quality of life: results from the ATLAS trial-avoid transvenous leads in appropriate subjects

AIMS

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide important insights into patients' acceptance of their medical devices. Avoid Transvenous Leads in Appropriate Subjects (ATLAS), a randomized, multi-centre, open-label clinical trial, recently reported fewer perioperative complications in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) compared with transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) patients. This study reports PROs, including device-specific and generic quality of life (QOL), from the ATLAS trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Device-specific QOL was the primary PRO using the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS) at 1 and 6 months' post-implantation. Secondary outcomes included generic QOL using the Medical Outcomes Survey (SF-36) pre-implant and 6 months' post-implantation. The FPAS and SF-36 were analysed using analysis of covariance. Pain measured using a Numeric Rating Scale, at 1 and 6 months, anaesthetic, body mass index, and within/between differences were analysed using descriptive statistics and mixed-effects linear models. Of the 503 patients randomized in ATLAS, 404 had complete FPAS data to be included in this analysis. Participant characteristics were balanced. There were no significant differences between S-ICD and TV-ICD for the FPAS or SF-36, across time points. Mean total FPAS scores increased from 73.73 (16.09) to 77.05 (16.13) and 74.43 (15.35) to 78.25 (15.88) for S-ICD and TV-ICD, respectively (P < 0.001). Patient-reported outcomes suggested that both devices were associated with good QOL.

CONCLUSION

Device-specific and generic QOL were similar between S-ICD and TV-ICD groups up to 6 months' post-implantation, indicating that regardless of device type, both groups reported good device-specific QOL in ATLAS patients. Subcutaneous ICD patients reported higher pain scores at implant, but pain decreased by 6 months. The findings offer evidence that can be included during shared decision-making. The inclusion of patient partners in ATLAS provided an opportunity to measure PROs that were deemed important to patients.

REGISTRATION

ClinialTrials.gov: NCT02881255.

A Modular Communicative Leadless Pacing-Defibrillator System

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is associated with fewer lead-related complications than a transvenous ICD; however, the subcutaneous ICD cannot provide bradycardia and antitachycardia pacing. Whether a modular pacing-defibrillator system comprising a leadless pacemaker in wireless communication with a subcutaneous ICD to provide antitachycardia and bradycardia pacing is safe remains unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a multinational, single-group study that enrolled patients at risk for sudden death from ventricular arrhythmias and followed them for 6 months after implantation of a modular pacemaker-defibrillator system. The safety end point was freedom from leadless pacemaker-related major complications, evaluated against a performance goal of 86%. The two primary performance end points were successful communication between the pacemaker and the ICD (performance goal, 88%) and a pacing threshold of up to 2.0 V at a 0.4-msec pulse width (performance goal, 80%).

RESULTS

We enrolled 293 patients, 162 of whom were in the 6-month end-point cohort and 151 of whom completed the 6-month follow-up period. The mean age of the patients was 60 years, 16.7% were women, and the mean (±SD) left ventricular ejection fraction was 33.1±12.6%. The percentage of patients who were free from leadless pacemaker-related major complications was 97.5%, which exceeded the prespecified performance goal. Wireless-device communication was successful in 98.8% of communication tests, which exceeded the prespecified goal. Of 151 patients, 147 (97.4%) had pacing thresholds of 2.0 V or less, which exceeded the prespecified goal. The percentage of episodes of arrhythmia that were successfully terminated by antitachycardia pacing was 61.3%, and there were no episodes for which antitachycardia pacing was not delivered owing to communication failure. Of 162 patients, 8 died (4.9%); none of the deaths were deemed to be related to arrhythmias or the implantation procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The leadless pacemaker in wireless communication with a subcutaneous ICD exceeded performance goals for freedom from major complications related to the leadless pacemaker, for communication between the leadless pacemaker and subcutaneous ICD, and for the percentage of patients with a pacing threshold up to 2.0 V at a 0.4-msec pulse width at 6 months. (Funded by Boston Scientific; MODULAR ATP ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04798768.).

Decision-making regarding subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator as primary prevention in patients with low ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Conventional transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) is the standard device used for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Nonetheless its use is associated with lead-related complications including infection and malfunction. A subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) offers an alternative option without the need for a transvenous lead but has limitations. The decision to implant a TV-ICD or S-ICD in patients with impaired LVEF for primary prevention of SCD is controversial. Several randomised controlled trials and large observational studies have confirmed similar safety and efficacy of S-ICDs and TV-ICDs in such population.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted to compare the outcomes of subcutaneous (S-ICD) versus transvenous (TV-ICD) implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane were searched for relevant peer-reviewed articles. Studies were selected based on relevance and quality. Key outcomes like complication rates, efficacy, and patient survival were summarized in a comparative table.

RESULTS

Different factors that influence the choice between an TV-ICD and S-ICD for primary prevention of SCD in patients with LVEF are highlighted to guide selection of the appropriate device in different patient populations. Moreover, future perspective on the combination of SICD with leadless pacemaker, and the latest development of the extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator are also discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

S-ICD offers a safe and efficacious option to primary prevention in reduced ejection fraction. Future development including incorporation of leadless pacemaker will add to the arsenal of choice to protect patients from sudden cardiac death.

Device programing and SMART pass algorithm activation in subcutaneous implantable defibrillator patients: Data from a remote monitoring database

BACKGROUND

The programing of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICD) in clinical practice has been little studied, as the activation status of the SMART Pass filter, which was implemented to reduce inappropriate shocks.

PURPOSE

We assessed device programing during follow-up and the rate of detected arrhythmias in consecutive S-ICD recipients.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 670 S-ICD patients followed on the remote network at 17 Italian centers for a median of 31 months (25th-75th percentile: 16-51). The enhanced SMART Pass version, introduced in October 2022, was expected to reduce the unintentional deactivation rate.

RESULTS

At the latest remote data transmission, the median conditional zone cut-off was set to 210 bpm (25th-75th percentile: 200-220), the shock zone cutoff was 250 bpm (25th-75th percentile: 240-250), and the SMART Pass was enabled in 586 (87%) patients. During follow-up, 194 automatic deactivation events were reported in 118 (18%) patients. Shocks were delivered in 129 (19%) patients, and untreated arrhythmias were recorded in 136 (20%) patients. The rate of shocks was lower when SMART Pass was enabled -0.12/patient-year (95% CI: 0.10-0.14) versus 0.20 (95% CI: 0.15-0.26) (p = .002), as it was the rate of untreated arrhythmias -0.12/patient-year (95% CI: 0.11-0.14) versus 0.23 (95% CI: 0.18-0.30) (p = .001). The enhanced SMART Pass version was associated with a lower rate of deactivations -0.04/patient-year (95% CI: 0.02-0.05) versus 0.14 (95% CI: 0.12-0.16) (p < .001), and with a reduction in treated and untreated arrhythmias (Incidence rate ratios: 0.40 (95% CI: 0.28-0.53) and 0.40 (95% CI: 0.30-0.55), respectively (p < .001)).

CONCLUSIONS

Centers tend to program devices to detect high ventricular rates for arrhythmia detection, to minimize inappropriate shock occurrences. SMART Pass activation is associated with lower rates of detected and treated arrhythmias. The enhanced SMART Pass version seems associated with a lower deactivation rate and with a further decrease in treated arrhythmias.

Effects of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Leads on the Tricuspid Valve and Right Ventricle: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

There are no randomized data to inform the extent to which transvenous cardiac leads cause tricuspid regurgitation (TR).

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine the effect of a transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) on TR severity, and secondarily, on right ventricular (RV) size and function.

METHODS

We evaluated TR severity before and 6 months after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator insertion in a post hoc analysis of adults randomized to receive a transvenous (n = 252) or subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) (n = 251) device. TR and RV size and systolic function were assessed by echocardiographic images analyzed in a core laboratory.

RESULTS

At baseline, at least mild TR was present in 30% of individuals. At 6 months, the proportion of participants with any TR in the TV-ICD group was 42% vs 19% in the S-ICD group (P < 0.001). The proportion with moderate or severe TR was 7% in the TV-ICD group vs 2% in the S-ICD group (P = 0.021). At 6 months, the OR of at least 1 grade worsening of TR in the TV-ICD group as compared with the S-ICD group was 7.2 (95% CI: 3.3-15.8; P < 0.001). There were no differences between groups with respect to RV size or systolic function.

CONCLUSIONS

Six months following TV-ICD insertion, there was a 7-fold increase in the risk of at least 1 grade worsening of TR, with 7% of individuals having TR that was moderate or severe. There was no detectable difference in RV size or function; however, longer follow-up is needed.

Occurrence of premature battery depletion in a large multicentre registry of subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator patients

AIMS

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) have become established in preventing sudden cardiac death, with some advantages over transvenous defibrillator systems, including a lower incidence of lead failures. Despite technological advancements, S-ICD carriers may suffer from significant complications, such as premature battery depletion (PBD), that led to an advisory for nearly 40 000 patients. This multicentre study evaluated the incidence of PBD in a large set of S-ICD patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from patients implanted with S-ICD models A209 and A219 between October 2012 and July 2023 across nine centres in Europe and the USA were reviewed. Incidence and implications of PBD, defined as clinically observed sudden drop in battery longevity, were analysed and compared to PBD with the definition of battery depletion within 60 months. Prospectively collected clinical data were obtained retrospectively from medical records, device telemetry, and manufacturer reports. This registry is listed on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05713708). Of the 1112 S-ICD devices analysed, 547 (49.2%) were equipped with a potentially affected capacitor linked to PBD occurrence, currently under Food and Drug Administration advisory. The median follow-up time for all patients was 46 [inter-quartile range (IQR) 24-63] months. Clinically suspected PBD was observed in 159 (29.1%) of cases, with a median time to generator removal or replacement of 65 (IQR 55-72) months, indicative of significant deviations from expected battery lifespan. Manufacturer confirmation of PBD was made in 91.7% of devices returned for analysis. No cases of PBD were observed in devices that were not under advisory.

CONCLUSION

This manufacturer-independent analysis highlights a notable incidence of PBD in patients equipped with S-ICD models under advisory, and the rate of PBD in this study corresponds to the rate currently estimated by the manufacturer. To the best of our knowledge, this provides the largest contemporary peer-reviewed study cohort investigating the actual incidence of PBD in S-ICD patients. These findings emphasize the importance of post-market registries in collaboration between clinicians and the manufacturer to optimize safety and efficacy in S-ICD treatment.

Unexpected Genetic Twists in Patients with Cardiac Devices

Objective: To assess the frequency and types of genetic mutations in patients with arrhythmias who underwent cardiac device implantation. Methods: Retrospective observational study, including 38 patients with different arrhythmias and cardiac arrest as a first cardiac event. Treatment modalities encompass pacemakers, transvenous defibrillators, loop recorders, subcutaneous defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy. All patients underwent genetic testing, using commercially available panels (106-174 genes). Outcome measures include mortality, arrhythmia recurrence, and device-related complications. Results: Clinical parameters revealed a family history of sudden cardiac death in 19 patients (50%), who were predominantly male (58%) and had a mean age of 44.5 years and a mean left ventricle ejection fraction of 40.3%. Genetic testing identified mutations in various genes, predominantly TMEM43 (11%). In two patients (3%) with arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy, complete subcutaneous defibrillator extraction with de novo transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation was needed. The absence of multiple associations among severe gene mutations was crucial for cardiac resynchronization therapy response. Mortality in this group was around 3% in titin dilated cardiomyopathy patients. Conclusions: Integration of genetic testing into the decision-making process for patients with electronic devices represents a paradigm shift in personalized medicine. By identifying genetic markers associated with arrhythmia susceptibility, heart failure etiology, and cardiac resynchronization therapy response, clinicians can tailor device choices to optimize patient outcomes.

Incidence, implications, and management of sense-B-noise failure in subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator patients: insights from a large multicentre registry

AIMS

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) offer potentially distinct advantages over transvenous defibrillator systems. Recent randomized trials showed significantly lower lead failure rates than transvenous ICD. Still, S-ICDs remain associated with the risk of inappropriate shocks (IAS). While previous studies have reported varying causes of IAS, this study explores a rare cause of IAS, referred to as 'sense-B-noise.' It was recently described in case series, but its incidence has not been studied in a large cohort of S-ICD patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively reviewed data from patients implanted with S-ICD models 1010, A209, and A219 between October 2009 and July 2023 across nine centres in Europe and the USA. The analysis concentrated on determining the incidence and understanding the implications of sense-B-noise events. Sense-B-noise represents a rare manifestation of distinct electrogram abnormalities within the primary and alternate sensing vectors. Data were collected from medical records, device telemetry, and manufacturer reports for investigation. This registry is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05713708). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator devices of the 1158 patients were analysed. The median follow-up time for all patients was 46 (IQR 23-64) months. In 107 patients (9.2%) ≥1 IAS was observed during follow-up. Sense-B-noise failure was diagnosed in six (0.5 and 5.6% of all IAS) patients, in all patients, the diagnosis was made after an IAS episode. Median lead dwell time in the affected patients was 23 (2-70) months. To resolve the sense-B-noise defect, in three patients reprogramming to the secondary vector was undertaken, and two patients underwent system removal with subsequent S-ICD reimplantation due to low amplitude in the secondary vector. In one patient, the secondary vector was initially programmed, and subsequently, an S-ICD system exchange was performed due to T-wave-oversensing IAS episodes.

CONCLUSION

This multicentre analysis' findings shed light on a rare but clinically highly significant adverse event in S-ICD therapy. To our knowledge, we provide the first systematic multicentre analysis investigating the incidence of sense-B-noise. Due to being difficult to diagnose and limited options for resolution, management of sense-B-noise is challenging. Complete system exchange may be the only option for some patients. Educating healthcare providers involved in S-ICD patient care is crucial for ensuring accurate diagnosis and effective management of sense-B-noise issues.

[Treatment with cardiac electronic implantable devices]

Cardiac device therapy provides not only treatment options for bradyarrhythmia but also advanced treatment for heart failure and preventive measures against sudden cardiac death. In heart failure treatment it enables synergistic reverse remodelling and reduces pharmacological side effects. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has revolutionized the treatment of reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left bundle branch block by decreasing the mortality and morbidity with improvement of the quality of life and resilience. Conduction system pacing (CSP) as an alternative method of physiological stimulation can improve heart function and reduce the risk of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy. Leadless pacers and subcutaneous/extravascular defibrillators offer less invasive options with lower complication rates. The prevention of infections through preoperative and postoperative strategies enhances the safety of these therapies.

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.

Update on Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infections and Their Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association: Endorsed by the International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases

The American Heart Association sponsored the first iteration of a scientific statement that addressed all aspects of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection in 2010. Major advances in the prevention, diagnosis, and management of these infections have occurred since then, necessitating a scientific statement update. An 11-member writing group was identified and included recognized experts in cardiology and infectious diseases, with a career focus on cardiovascular infections. The group initially met in October 2022 to develop a scientific statement that was drafted with front-line clinicians in mind and focused on providing updated clinical information to enhance outcomes of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection. The current scientific statement highlights recent advances in prevention, diagnosis, and management, and how they may be incorporated in the complex care of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection.

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.

Acute human defibrillation performance of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator with an additional coil electrode

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) delivers 80 J shocks from an 8 cm left-parasternal coil to a 59 cm3 left lateral pulse generator (PG). A system that defibrillates with lower energy could significantly reduce PG size. Computer modeling and animal studies suggested that a second shock coil either parallel to the left-parasternal coil or transverse from the xiphoid to the PG pocket would significantly reduce the defibrillation threshold.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to acutely assess the defibrillation efficacy of parallel and transverse configurations in patients receiving an S-ICD.

METHODS

Testing was performed in patients receiving a conventional S-ICD system. Success at 65 J was required before investigational testing. A second electrode was temporarily inserted from the xiphoid incision connected to the PG with an investigational Y-adapter. Phase 1 (n = 11) tested the parallel configuration. Phase 2 (n = 21) tested both parallel and transverse configurations in random order.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 35 patients (28 males (80%); mean age 51 ± 17 years; left ventricular ejection fraction 40% ± 15%; body mass index 26 ± 4 kg/m2; prior myocardial infarction 46%; congestive heart failure 49%; cardiomyopathy 63%). Compared to the conventional S-ICD system, mean shock impedance decreased for both parallel (69 ± 15 Ω vs 86 ± 20 Ω; n = 33; P < .001) and transverse (56 ± 14 Ω vs 81 ± 21 Ω; n = 20; P < .001) configurations. Shock success rates at 20, 30, and 40 J were 55%, 79%, 97%, and 25%, 70%, 90% for parallel and transverse configurations, respectively. Defibrillation threshold testing was well tolerated with no serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Adding a second shock coil, particularly in the parallel configuration, significantly reduced the impedance and had a high likelihood of defibrillation success at energies ≤40 J. This may enable the development of a smaller S-ICD.

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

AIMS

Patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies are usually younger and have a predominantly arrhythmia-related prognosis; they have nearly normal life expectancy thanks to the protection against sudden cardiac death provided by the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to the transvenous ICD and has evolved over the years. This study aimed to evaluate the rate of inappropriate shocks (IS), appropriate therapies, and device-related complications in patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies who underwent modern S-ICD implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We enrolled consecutive patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies who had undergone implantation of a modern S-ICD from January 2016 to December 2020 and who were followed up until December 2022. A total of 1338 S-ICD implantations were performed within the observation period. Of these patients, 628 had cardiomyopathies or channelopathies. The rate of IS at 12 months was 4.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.8-6.9] in patients with cardiomyopathies and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.1-3.8) in patients with channelopathies (P = 0.032). No significant differences were noted over a median follow-up of 43 months [hazard ratio (HR): 0.76; 95% CI: 0.45-1.31; P = 0.351]. The rate of appropriate shocks at 12 months was 2.3% (95% CI: 1.1-4.1) in patients with cardiomyopathies and 2.1% (95% CI: 0.6-5.3) in patients with channelopathies (P = 1.0). The rate of device-related complications was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.3-2.3) and 3.2% (95% CI: 1.2-6.8), respectively (P = 0.074). No significant differences were noted over the entire follow-up. The need for pacing was low, occurring in 0.8% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Modern S-ICDs may be a valuable alternative to transvenous ICDs in patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies. Our findings suggest that modern S-ICD therapy carries a low rate of IS.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/Identifier: NCT02275637.

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).

Development of the Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: JACC Historical Breakthroughs in Perspective

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) represent transformational technology, arguably the most significant advance in cardiovascular medicine in 50 years. The vision and determination of pioneers Mirowski and Mower was fundamental to this monumental achievement, working with limited resources and confronted by skepticism/criticism from medical establishment. The inventors were followed >35 years in which a multitude of innovative clinical scientists and engineers introduced technological advances leading to the sophisticated devices in practice today. A pivotal patient experiment with automated termination of ventricular fibrillation (1980) led to U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval. Transvenous lead systems converted ICDs from thoracotomy-based secondary prevention to primary prevention of sudden death devices in countless patients worldwide. ICD acceptance was solidified by prospective randomized controlled trials showing reduced mortality superior to antiarrhythmic drugs. ICDs eventually expanded from coronary disease to inherited arrhythmia conditions (eg, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy). The ICD breakthrough story demonstrates how significant progress is possible in medicine against all odds, given fearless imagination to pursue novel ideas that conflict with accepted wisdom.

Design and rationale of the MODULAR ATP global clinical trial: A novel intercommunicative leadless pacing system and the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Background

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has demonstrated safety and efficacy for the treatment of malignant ventricular arrhythmias. However, a limitation of the S-ICD lies in the inability to either pace-terminate ventricular tachycardia or provide prolonged bradycardia pacing support.

Objective

The rationale and design of a prospective, single-arm, multinational trial of an intercommunicative leadless pacing system integrated with the S-ICD will be presented.

Methods

A technical description of the modular cardiac rhythm management (mCRM) system (EMPOWER leadless pacemaker and EMBLEM S-ICD) and the implantation procedure is provided. MODULAR ATP (Effectiveness of the EMPOWER™ Modular Pacing System and EMBLEM™ Subcutaneous ICD to Communicate Antitachycardia Pacing) is a multicenter, international trial enrolling up to 300 patients at risk of sudden cardiac death at up to 60 centers trial design. The safety endpoint of freedom from major complications related to the mCRM system or implantation procedure at 6 months and 2 years are significantly higher than 86% and 81%, respectively, and all-cause survival is significantly >85% at 2 years.

Results

Efficacy endpoints are that at 6 months mCRM communication success is significantly higher than 88% and the percentage of subjects with low and stable thresholds is significantly higher than 80%. Substudies to evaluate rate-responsive features and performance of the pacing module are also described.

Conclusion

The MODULAR ATP global clinical trial will prospectively test the safety and efficacy of the first intercommunicating leadless pacing system with the S-ICD. This trial will allow for robust validation of device-device communication, pacing performance, rate responsiveness, and system safety.

Procedure, management, and outcome of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator extraction in clinical practice

AIMS

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) therapy is expanding rapidly. However, there are few data on the S-ICD extraction procedure and subsequent patient management. The aim of this analysis was to describe the procedure, management, and outcome of S-ICD extractions in clinical practice.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We enrolled consecutive patients who required complete S-ICD extraction at 66 Italian centres. From 2013 to 2022, 2718 patients undergoing de novo implantation of an S-ICD were enrolled. Of these, 71 required complete S-ICD system extraction (17 owing to infection). The S-ICD system was successfully extracted in all patients, and no complications were reported; the median procedure duration was 40 (25th-75th percentile: 20-55) min. Simple manual traction was sufficient to remove the lead in 59 (84%) patients, in whom lead-dwelling time was shorter [20 (9-32) months vs. 30 (22-41) months; P = 0.032]. Hospitalization time was short in the case of both non-infectious [2 (1-2) days] and infectious indications [3 (1-6) days]. In the case of infection, no patients required post-extraction intravenous antibiotics, the median duration of any antibiotic therapy was 10 (10-14) days, and the re-implantation was performed during the same procedure in 29% of cases. No complications arose over a median of 21 months.

CONCLUSION

The S-ICD extraction was safe and easy to perform, with no complications. Simple traction of the lead was successful in most patients, but specific tools could be needed for systems implanted for a longer time. The peri- and post-procedural management of S-ICD extraction was free from complications and not burdensome for patients and healthcare system.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/Identifier: NCT02275637.

NL-EVDR: Netherlands-ExtraVascular Device Registry

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy is an essential element in treating cardiac arrhythmias. Despite their benefits, conventional transvenous CIEDs are associated with a significant risk of mainly pocket- and lead-related complications. To overcome these complications, extravascular devices (EVDs), such as the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and intracardiac leadless pacemaker, have been developed. In the near future, several other innovative EVDs will become available. However, it is difficult to evaluate EVDs in large studies because of high costs, lack of long-term follow-up, imprecise data or selected patient populations. To improve evaluation of these technologies, real-world, large-scale, long-term data are of utmost importance. A Dutch registry-based study seems to be a unique possibility for this goal due to early involvement of Dutch hospitals in novel CIEDs and an existing quality control infrastructure, the Netherlands Heart Registration (NHR). Therefore, we will soon start the Netherlands-ExtraVascular Device Registry (NL-EVDR), a Dutch nationwide registry with long-term follow-up of EVDs. The NL-EVDR will be incorporated in NHR's device registry. Additional EVD-specific variables will be collected both retrospectively and prospectively. Hence, combining Dutch EVD data will provide highly relevant information on safety and efficacy. As a first step, a pilot project has started in selected centres in October 2022 to optimise data collection.