Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Defibrillator Therapy

Validation of the PRAETORIAN score in a large subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator collective: Usefulness in clinical routine

BACKGROUND

To assess the risk of unsuccessful conversion of ventricular fibrillation during defibrillation testing (DFT) with the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD), the PRAETORIAN score has been proposed.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to validate the PRAETORIAN score in a large S-ICD collective.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center analysis of S-ICD patients receiving intraoperative DFT was performed. DFT was performed using a stepwise protocol with 65-J standard polarity, change of polarity, increase to 80 J, and repositioning if necessary. If all DFTs failed, we switched to a transvenous ICD.

RESULTS

Overall, 398 patients were analyzed (268 male [67.3%]; mean age 42.4 ± 15.9 years; mean body mass index [BMI] 25.9 ± 4.8 kg/m2). Successful DFT with the first ICD shock was observed in 264 patients (66.3%). One hundred fourteen patients were defibrillated with the second (n = 104) or third (n = 10) DFT after changing shock polarity and/or shock energy. Overall, 20 patients needed at least 3 DFT (ie, 80 J and/or re-positioning). The majority (n = 88 [65.7%]) of DFT failures occurred before 2015 with the first-generation S-ICD. PRAETORIAN score was an independent predictor of DFT failure (odds ratio [OR] 1.007; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.003-1.011 P ≤.001), while whereas BMI alone was not (P = .31). Presence of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.3-4.4; P = .004) was predictive for at least 1 unsuccessful DFT in our multivariate regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

PRAETORIAN score proved to be a useful and valid predictive tool for successful DFT, whereas BMI only had a limited role. Patients with HCM were at increased risk for DFT failure or needed higher DFT energy.

Inappropriate shock incidence in patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators with concomitant cardiac implantable electronic devices: A single-center cohort study

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) are occasionally used in combination with other cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, whether the incidence of inappropriate shock increases in patients with S-ICDs and concomitant CIEDs remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the association between the concomitant use of CIEDs and the incidence of inappropriate shock in patients with current-generation S-ICDs.

METHODS

A total of 127 consecutive patients received an S-ICD. Patients were assigned to two groups depending on concomitant use of CIEDs at the time of S-ICD implantation: patients without other CIEDs (non-combined group, 106 patients) and patients with other CIEDs (combined group, 21 patients). CIEDs included pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers, and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators. The primary outcome was inappropriate shock, defined as a shock other than ventricular arrhythmia. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a time-varying Cox proportional hazards model which was adjusted for age because age differed between the groups and could be a confounder.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up period of 2.2 years (interquartile range, 1.0-3.4 years), inappropriate shock events occurred in 17 (16%) and five (19%) patients of the non-combined and combined groups, respectively. While the age-adjusted hazard ratio for inappropriate shock was 24% higher in the combined than in the non-combined group (hazard ratio = 1.24, 95% confidence interval, 0.39-3.97), this difference was insignificant (p = .71).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of inappropriate shock did not differ between patients with and without concomitant use of CIEDs, suggesting that S-ICDs could potentially be combined with other CIEDs without increasing the number of inappropriate shocks. Further studies are warranted to confirm the safety and feasibility of concomitant use of S-ICDs and CIEDs.

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.

Substernal Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator System Infections in Large Animals

The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (EV ICD) with lead implantation in the substernal space may provide clinical advantages over transvenous and subcutaneous systems. This is the first reported examination of substernal infection in large animals implanted with the EV ICD system.The system was implanted in 13 large animals (canine, porcine, and ovine). The porcine were co-implanted with a transvenous cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) system. Infection was promoted through a cadence of immunosuppressive monitors and study interventions. The animals were monitored for clinical presentation of infection over 12-18 weeks, and cultures were collected to confirm infection. Treatment was bifurcated: 1) some infections were treated only with antibiotics ( "antibiotics only" ), whereas 2) some infections were treated with system removal and antibiotics ( "antibiotics + explant" ). Histopathology was conducted at the study closure.Five infections were confirmed over the course of the study, four of which involved infection of the EV ICD system and one infection of only the concomitantly implanted transvenous CRT-D system without EV ICD-related infection. Among the four EV ICD infections, two of two infections treated with antibiotics only did not resolve whereas two of two infections treated with antibiotics + explant resolved, as shown by histology. The transvenous CRT-D system infection progressed to septicemia and endocarditis, requiring early study discontinuation. No EV ICD-related infection progressed to blood stream infection, and the sternal bone did not become infected when infection was present in the substernal tissues.The study findings suggest that EV ICD-related infections are treatable with system removal and antibiotic therapy.

Opportunities and drawbacks of the subcutaneous defibrillator across different clinical settings

INTRODUCTION

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an established therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) and an alternative to a transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator system in selected patients. Beyond randomized clinical trials, many observational studies have described the clinical performance of S-ICD across different subgroups of patients.

AREAS COVERED

Our review aimed to describe the opportunities and drawbacks of the S-ICD, focusing on their use in special populations and across different clinical settings.

EXPERT OPINION

The choice to implant S-ICD should be based on the patient's tailored approach, which takes into account the adequate S-ICD screening at rest or during stress, the infective risk, the ventricular arrhythmia susceptibility, the progressive nature of the underlying disease, the work or sports activity, and the risk of lead-related complications.

Infection in patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: Results of the S-ICD Post Approval Study

BACKGROUND

Early subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) studies included atypical cohorts of patients who were younger with fewer comorbidities. Recent S-ICD studies included patient populations with more comorbidities.

OBJECTIVES

The goals of this study were to determine the incidence and predictors of S-ICD-related infection over a 3-year follow-up period and to use these results to develop an infection risk score.

METHODS

The S-ICD Post Approval Study is a US prospective registry of 1637 patients. Baseline demographic characteristics and outcomes with 3-year postimplantation follow-up were compared between patients with and without device-related infection. A risk score was derived from multivariable proportional hazards analysis of 22 variables.

RESULTS

Infection was observed in 55 patients (3.3%), with 69% of infections occurring within 90 days and a vast majority (92.7%) within 1 year of implantation. Late infections more likely involved device erosion; no infections occurred after year 2. The annual mortality rate postinfection was 0.6%/y. No lead extraction complications or bacteremia related to infection were observed. An infection risk score was created with diabetes, age, prior transvenous ICD implant, and ejection fraction as predictors. Patients with a risk score of ≥3 had an 8.8 hazard ratio (95% confidence interval 2.8-16.3) of infection compared with a 0 risk score.

CONCLUSION

Infection rates in the S-ICD Post Approval Study were similar to other S-ICD populations and not associated with systemic blood-borne infections. Late infection (>1 year) is uncommon and associated with system erosion. A high-risk infection cohort can be identified that may facilitate preventive measures.

The need for a subsequent transvenous system in patients implanted with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

BACKGROUND

The absence of pacing capabilities may reduce the appeal of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) devices for patients at risk for conduction disorders or with antitachycardia pacing (ATP)/cardiac resynchronization (CRT) requirements. Reports of rates of S-ICD to transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) system switch in real-world scenarios are limited.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the need for a subsequent transvenous (TV) device in patients implanted with an S-ICD and its predictors.

METHODS

All patients implanted with an S-ICD were enrolled from the multicenter, real-world iSUSI (International SUbcutaneouS Implantable cardioverter defibrillator) Registry. The need for a TV device and its clinical reason, and appropriate and inappropriate device therapies were assessed. Logistic regression with Firth penalization was used to assess the association between baseline and procedural characteristics and the overall need for a subsequent TV device.

RESULTS

A total of 1509 patients were enrolled (age 50.8 ± 15.8 years; 76.9% male; 32.0% ischemic; left ventricular ejection fraction 38% [30%-60%]). Over 26.5 [13.4-42.9] months, 155 (10.3%) and 144 (9.3%) patients experienced appropriate and inappropriate device therapies, respectively. Forty-one patients (2.7%) required a TV device (13 bradycardia; 10 need for CRT; 10 inappropriate shocks). Body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2 and chronic kidney disease (CKD) were associated with need for a TV device (odds ratio [OR] 2.57 [1.37-4.81], P = .003; and OR 2.67 [1.29-5.54], P = .008, respectively).

CONCLUSION

A low rate (2.7%) of conversion from S-ICD to a TV device was observed at follow-up, with need for antibradycardia pacing, ATP, or CRT being the main reasons. BMI >30 kg/m2 and CKD predicted all-cause need for a TV device.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator: a systematic review of comparative effectiveness and safety

This systematic review evaluated the clinical effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) in patients at an increased risk of sudden cardiac death and with an ICD indication for primary or secondary prevention. A systematic literature search was conducted in four databases (Medline via Ovid, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and HTA-INAHTA). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled observational studies with ≥100 S-ICD patients and a low to moderate risk of bias were eligible for inclusion. The studies' quality and the available evidence's strength were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, the ROBINS-I tool, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. One RCT, a post hoc analysis of the RCT (n = 849) and four controlled observational studies (n = 7149) were included. The quality of the available evidence was graded as low to very low, except for the primary composite endpoint of the RCT, which was rated as moderate quality. After 4 years, the RCT showed that S-ICD was non-inferior to TV-ICD regarding the composite endpoint of inappropriate shocks and device-related complications (68 [15.1%] vs. 68 [15.7%], hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.71, 1.39], non-inferiority margin 1.45, P = 0.001). The RCT and two observational studies reported statistically significantly fewer lead complications in S-ICD patients (after 4 years: 1.4% vs. 6.6%, HR 0.24, 95% CI [0.10, 0.54]; after 3 years: 0.3% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.03; and after 5 years: 0.8% vs. 11.5%, P = 0.03). Identified evidence about appropriate and inappropriate shocks was inconclusive: The RCT detected statistically significantly more appropriate shocks in patients with S-ICD (83 [19.2%] vs. 57 [11.5%], HR 1.52, 95% CI [1.08, 2.12], P = 0.02), whereas one observational study showed a statistically significantly lower rate in the S-ICD group (9.9%, 95% CI [7.0, 13.9], vs. 13.9%, 95% CI [10.8, 17.8], P = 0.003). Regarding inappropriate shocks, one observational study reported statistically significantly higher rates in the S-ICD cohort (11.9% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.007), whereas the RCT and two other observational studies did not detect a statistically significant difference between the treatment groups (P > 0.05). None of the included studies showed a statistically significant difference in overall mortality and shock efficacy between patients with S-ICD and TV-ICD (P > 0.05). The available evidence is insufficient to show the superiority of S-ICD compared with TV-ICD, hindering the widespread use of the technology. Results of the recently completed ATLAS trial are to be awaited, and the anticipated role of the S-ICD needs to be clearly formulated.

Clinical outcomes of subcutaneous vs. transvenous implantable defibrillator therapy in a polymorbid patient cohort

Background

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has been designed to overcome lead-related complications and device endocarditis. Lacking the ability for pacing or resynchronization therapy its usage is limited to selected patients at risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD).

Objective

The aim of this single-center study was to assess clinical outcomes of S-ICD and single-chamber transvenous (TV)-ICD in an all-comers population.

Methods

The study cohort comprised a total of 119 ICD patients who underwent either S-ICD (n = 35) or TV-ICD (n = 84) implantation at the University Hospital Frankfurt from 2009 to 2017. By applying an inverse probability-weighting (IPW) analysis based on the propensity score including the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) to adjust for potential extracardiac comorbidities, we aimed for head-to-head comparison on the study composite endpoint: overall survival, hospitalization, and device-associated events (including appropriate and inappropriate shocks or system-related complications).

Results

The median age of the study population was 66.0 years, 22.7% of the patients were female. The underlying heart disease was ischemic cardiomyopathy (61.4%) with a median LVEF of 30%. Only 52.9% had received an ICD for primary prevention, most of the patients (67.3%) had advanced heart failure (NYHA class II–III) and 16.8% were in atrial fibrillation. CCI was 5 points in TV-ICD patients vs. 4 points for patients with S-ICD (p = 0.209) indicating increased morbidity. The composite endpoint occurred in 38 patients (31.9 %), revealing no significant difference between patients implanted with an S-ICD or TV-ICD (unweighted HR 1.50, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.78–2.90; p = 0.229, weighted HR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.61–1.50, p = 0.777). Furthermore, we observed no difference in any single clinical endpoint or device-associated outcome, neither in the unweighted cohort nor following inverse probability-weighting.

Conclusion

Clinical outcomes of the S-ICD and TV-ICD revealed no differences in the composite endpoint including survival, freedom of hospitalization and device-associated events, even after careful adjustment for potential confounders. Moreover, the CCI was evaluated in a S-ICD cohort demonstrating higher survival rates than predicted by the CCI in young, polymorbid (S-)ICD patients.

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Pediatric Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) was developed as an alternative to the transvenous ICD, to prevent lead-related complications associated with the latter. The absence of intravascular or intracardiac components offers potential advantages to pediatric patients.

AIMS

The aim of the study is to present an overview of our experience with S-ICDs in the pediatric center that, currently, has performed the largest number of implantations in children in Poland.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of data from medical history, qualification, implantation procedure, and S-ICD post-implantation observations in 11 pediatric patients were performed.

RESULTS

S-ICDs were implanted in 11 patients, 8 boys and 3 girls, aged 12-17 years. The S-ICD was implanted for primary prevention in seven patients: four with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), two with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), and one with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC). It was implanted for secondary prevention in four patients: two with sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) in the course of idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (IVF), one with long QT syndrome (LQTS) after probable SCA, and one with Brugada syndrome after SCA. In all patients, the device was implanted intramuscularly. One patient did not have a defibrillation test performed due to the presence of an intracardiac thrombus. In one patient, during screening, it was decided to implant an electrode on the right side of the sternum. There were no early or late complications with any of the procedures. So far, no inadequate discharges have been observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results prove the efficacy of the S-ICD treatment option along with technically simple surgery, which supports its further and more widespread application in children.

Inappropriate shocks due to air entrapment in patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: a meta-summary of case reports

Air entrapment has been recently described as a cause of inappropriate shock (IAS) among patients who underwent subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation. Data about this complication are lacking in the literature. This meta-summary aimed to collect the case reports describing IAS due to air entrapment, evaluate the possible promoting factors and elaborate a practical approach for prevention, diagnosis, and management of this complication. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Prevention and Management of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: State-of-the-Art and Future Directions

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is an increasingly common complication of device therapy. CIED infection confers significant patient morbidity and health care expenditure, hence it is essential that clinicians recognise the contemporary strategies for predicting, reducing and treating these events. Recent technological advances-in particular, the development of antimicrobial envelopes, leadless devices and validated risk scores-present decision-makers with novel strategies for managing this expanding patient population. This review summarises the key issues facing CIED patients and their physicians, and explores the supporting evidence for the latest therapeutic developments in this field.

Case report of an S-ICD implantation for secondary prevention in a patient with complex congenital heart disease, dextrocardia, and situs solitus

Background

Dextrocardia is a congenital anomaly in which the apex of the heart is abnormally located on the right side of the chest. Situs solitus describes viscera that are in the normal position, with the stomach on the left side. In these patients, implantation of transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) can be limited by anatomical abnormalities commonly associated with this condition.

Case summary

We present the case of a young female patient with absent right atrioventricular connection, morphologically left systemic ventricle, muscular restrictive ventricular septal defect, and dextrocardia with situs solitus who was indicated for secondary prophylactic ICD implantation after resuscitation for polymorphic ventricular tachycardia. Due to a bilateral bidirectional Glenn anastomosis, transvenous access via the vena cava superior to the right ventricle could not be achieved. For this reason, we successfully implanted a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) with an individually optimized right parasternal electrode position. Potential complications of epimyocardial implantation via re-thoracotomy could thus be circumvented.

Discussion

In patients with complex congenital heart disease, the S-ICD is an effective method of preventing sudden cardiac death. Our case report demonstrates the feasibility of left S-ICD implantation even in the presence of dextrocardia with situs solitus.

Implantable defibrillators in primary prevention of genetic arrhythmias. A shocking choice?

Many previously unexplained life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac deaths (SCDs) in young individuals are now recognized to be genetic in nature and are ascribed to a growing number of distinct inherited arrhythmogenic diseases. These include hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy, long QT syndrome, Brugada syndrome, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT), and short QT syndrome. Because of their lower frequency compared to coronary disease, risk factors for SCD are not very precise in patients with inherited arrhythmogenic diseases. As randomized studies are generally non-feasible and may even be ethically unjustifiable, especially in the presence of effective therapies, the risk assessment of malignant arrhythmic events such as SCD, cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation (VF), appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) interventions, or ICD therapy on fast VT/VF to guide ICD implantation is based on observational data and expert consensus. In this document, we review risk factors for SCD and indications for ICD implantation and additional therapies. What emerges is that, allowing for some important differences between cardiomyopathies and channelopathies, there is a growing and disquieting trend to create, and then use, semi-automated systems (risk scores, risk calculators, and, to some extent, even guidelines) which then dictate therapeutic choices. Their common denominator is a tendency to favour ICD implantation, sometime with reason, sometime without it. This contrasts with the time-honoured approach of selecting, among the available therapies, the best option (ICDs included) based on the clinical judgement for the specific patient and after having assessed the protection provided by optimal medical treatment.

Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Defibrillator Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials and Propensity Score-Matched Studies

Background

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (S‐ICDs) have been of great interest as an alternative to transvenous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (TV‐ICDs). No meta‐analyses synthesizing data from high‐quality studies have yet been published.

Methods and Results

An electronic literature search was conducted to retrieve randomized controlled trials or propensity score–matched studies comparing S‐ICD against TV‐ICD in patients with an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator indication. The primary outcomes were device‐related complications and lead‐related complications. Secondary outcomes were inappropriate shocks, appropriate shock, all‐cause mortality, and infection. All outcomes were pooled under random‐effects meta‐analyses and reported as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. Kaplan–Meier curves of device‐related complications were digitized to retrieve individual patient data and pooled under a 1‐stage meta‐analysis using Cox models to determine hazard ratios (HRs) of patients undergoing S‐ICD versus TV‐ICD. A total of 5 studies (2387 patients) were retrieved. S‐ICD had a similar rate of device‐related complications compared with TV‐ICD (RR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.33–1.04]; P=0.070), but a significantly lower lead‐related complication rate (RR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07–0.29]; P<0.0001). The individual patient data–based 1‐stage stratified Cox model for device‐related complications across 4 studies yielded no significant difference (shared‐frailty HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.61–1.09]; P=0.167), but visual inspection of pooled Kaplan–Meier curves suggested a divergence favoring S‐ICD. Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between both modalities.

Conclusions

S‐ICD is clinically superior to TV‐ICD in terms of lead‐related complications while demonstrating comparable efficacy and safety. For device‐related complications, S‐ICD may be beneficial over TV‐ICD in the long term. These indicate that S‐ICD is likely a suitable substitute for TV‐ICD in patients requiring implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implantation without a pacing indication.

CE: Guideline-Directed Cardiac Devices for Patients with Heart Failure

ABSTRACT

Heart failure affects over 6.2 million adults in the United States and is expected to affect over 8 million by 2030. The U.S. one-year mortality rate is almost 30% among Medicare beneficiaries. Technological advances have produced several new cardiac devices that are available for therapy and symptom management. This article reviews current device therapies for heart failure and uses a composite case to demonstrate how bedside nurses can help patients understand treatment options related to their disease process and care for them through this experience.

Device-Related Complications and Inappropriate Therapies Among Subcutaneous vs. Transvenous Implantable Defibrillator Recipients: Insight Monaldi Rhythm Registry

Introduction

In the context of randomized clinical trials, subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillators (S-ICDs) are non-inferior to transvenous ICDs (T-ICDs) concerning device-related complications or inappropriate shocks in patients with an indication for defibrillator therapy and not in need of pacing. We aimed at describing the clinical features of patients who underwent S-ICD implantation in our clinical practice, as well as the ICD-related complications and the inappropriate therapies among S-ICD vs. T-ICD recipients during a long-term follow-up.

Materials and Methods

All patients undergoing ICD, both S-ICD and TV-ICD, at Monaldi Hospital from January 1, 2015 to January 1, 2019 and followed up at our institution were included in the present analysis. The clinical variables associated with S-ICD implantation were evaluated by logistic regression analyses. We collected the ICD inappropriate therapies, ICD-related complications (including both pulse generator and lead-related complications), ICD-related infections, appropriate ICD therapies, and overall mortality. Kaplan-Meier (KM) analyses were performed to assess the risk of clinical outcome events between the two subgroups. A time-dependent Cox regression analysis was performed to adjust the results.

Results

Total 607 consecutive patients (mean age 53.8 ± 16.8, male 77.8%) with both TV-ICD (n: 290, 47.8%) and S-ICD (n: 317, 52.2%), implanted and followed at our center for a mean follow-up of 1614 ± 1018 days, were included in the study. At multivariate logistic regression analysis, an independent association between S-ICD implantation and ionic channel disease [OR: 6.01 (2.26–15.87); p < 0.0001] and ischemic cardiomyopathy [OR: 0.20 (0.12–0.35); p < 0.0001] was shown. The KM analysis did not show a significantly different risk of the inappropriate ICD therapies (log rank p = 0.64) between the two subgroups; conversely, a significant increase in the risk of ICD-related complications (log rank p = 0.02) and infections (log rank p = 0.02) in TV-ICD group was shown. The adjusted risk for ICD-related infections [OR: 0.07 (0.009–0.55), p = 0.01] and complications [0.31 (0.12–0.81), p = 0.01] was significantly lower among patients with S-ICD.

Conclusions

The choice to implant S-ICD was mainly driven by younger age and the presence of ionic channel disease; conversely ischemic cardiomyopathy reduces the probability to use this technology. No significant differences in inappropriate ICD therapies were shown among S-ICD vs. TV-ICD group; moreover, S-ICD is characterized by a lower rate of infectious and non-infectious complications leading to surgical revision or extraction.

A real‐world experience of subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardiac defibrillators—comparison with the PRAETORIAN study

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Comparative Assessment of Transvenous versus Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Therapy Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous (S-ICD) and transvenous (TV-ICD) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator devices effectively reduce the incidence of sudden cardiac death in patients at a high risk of ventricular arrhythmias. This study aimed to evaluate the safe replacement of TV-ICD with S-ICD based on updated recent evidence.

METHODS

We systematically searched EMBASE, JSTOR, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library on 30 July 2021 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

We identified 26 studies that examined 7542 (58.27%) patients with S-ICD and 5400 (41.72%) with TV-ICD. The findings indicated that, compared to patients with TV-ICD, patients with S-ICD had a lower incidence of defibrillation lead failure (odds ratio [OR], 0.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.98; p = 0.05), lead displacement or fracture (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12-0.86; p = 0.0003), pneumothorax and/or hemothorax (OR: 0.22, 95% CI 0.05, 0.97, p = 0.05), device failure (OR: 0.70, 95% CI 0.51, 0.95, p = 0.02), all-cause mortality (OR: 0.44 [95% CI 0.32, 0.60], p < 0.001), and lead erosion (OR: 0.01, 95% CI 0.00, 0.05, p < 0.001). Patients with TV-ICD had a higher incidence of pocket complications than patients with S-ICD (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.23-3.69; p = 0.007) and a higher but insignificant incidence of inappropriate sensing (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 0.97-12.86; p = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

The S-ICD algorithm was safer and more effective than the TV-ICD system as it minimized the incidence of pocket complications, lead displacement or fracture, inappropriate sensing, defibrillation lead failure, pneumothorax/hemothorax, device failure, lead erosion, and all-cause mortality. Future studies should explore the scope of integrating novel algorithms with the current S-ICD systems to improve cardiovascular outcomes.

Efficacy of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Arrhythmias in Patients with Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy-A Multicenter Study

Background: Atrial arrhythmias are present in up to 20% of patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC). Catheter ablation (CA) is an effective treatment for atrial arrhythmias in the general population. Data regarding CA for atrial arrhythmias in ARVC are scarce. Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of CA for atrial arrhythmias in patients with ARVC. Methods: In this international collaborative effort, all patients with a definite diagnosis of ARVC undergoing CA for atrial fibrillation (AF), focal atrial tachycardia (AT), or cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI)-dependent atrial flutter (AFl) were extracted from twelve ARVC registries. Demographic, periprocedural, and long-term arrhythmic outcome data were collected. Results: Thirty-seven patients were enrolled in the study (age 50.2 ± 16.6 years, male 84%, CHA₂DS₂VASc 1 (1,2), HAS-BLED 0 (0–2)). The arrhythmia leading to CA was AF in 23 (62%), focal left AT in 5 (14%), and CTI-dependent AFl in 9 (24%). Acute procedural success was achieved in all procedures but one (n = 1 focal left AT; 97% acute success). The median follow-up period was 27 (13–67) months, and 96%, 74%, and 61% of patients undergoing AF ablation were free from any atrial arrhythmia recurrence after a single procedure at 6 months, 12 months, and last follow-up, respectively. After focal AT ablation, freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence was 80%, 80%, and 60% at 6 months, 12 months, and last follow-up, respectively. All patients undergoing CTI ablation were free from atrial arrhythmia recurrences at 6 months, with 89% single-procedural arrhythmic freedom at last follow-up. One major complication (2.7%; PV stenosis requiring PV stenting) occurred. Conclusions: CA is safe and effective in managing atrial arrhythmias in patients with ARVC, with success rates comparable to the general population.

Lead Abandonment and Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (S-ICD) Implantation in a Cohort of Patients With ICD Lead Malfunction

Background: When an implantable-cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead becomes non-functional, a recommendation currently exists for either lead abandonment or removal. Lead abandonment and subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) implantation may represent an additional option for patients who do not require pacing. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of a strategy of lead abandonment and S-ICD implantation in the setting of lead malfunction.

Methods: We analyzed all consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD implantation after abandonment of malfunctioning leads and compared their outcomes with those of patients who underwent extraction and subsequent reimplantation of a single-chamber transvenous ICD (T-ICD).

Results: Forty-three patients underwent S-ICD implantation after abandonment of malfunctioning leads, while 62 patients underwent extraction and subsequent reimplantation of a new T-ICD. The two groups were comparable. In the extraction group, no major complications occurred during extraction, while the procedure failed and an S-ICD was implanted in 4 patients. During a median follow-up of 21 months, 3 major complications or deaths occurred in the S-ICD group and 11 in the T-ICD group (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.29–3.94; P = 0.912). Minor complications were 4 in the S-ICD group and 5 in the T-ICD group (HR 2.13; 95% CI 0.49–9.24; P = 0.238).

Conclusions: In the event of ICD lead malfunction, extraction avoids the potential long-term risks of abandoned leads. Nonetheless the strategy of lead abandonment and S-ICD implantation was feasible and safe, with no significant increase in adverse outcomes, and may represent an option in selected clinical settings. Further studies are needed to fully understand the potential risks of lead abandonment.

Clinical Trial Registration: URL: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02275637

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially life-saving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased healthcare costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, anti-bacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. Guidance on whether to use novel device alternatives expected to be less prone to infections and novel oral anticoagulants is also limited, as are definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. Moreover, an international consensus document on management of CIED infections is lacking. The recognition of these issues, the dissemination of results from important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially life-saving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased healthcare costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, anti-bacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. Guidance on whether to use novel device alternatives expected to be less prone to infections and novel oral anticoagulants is also limited, as are definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. Moreover, an international consensus document on management of CIED infections is lacking. The recognition of these issues, the dissemination of results from important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

Contemporary ICD Use in Patients with Heart Failure

Despite constant breakthroughs in heart failure (HF) therapy, the population of HF patients resume to grow and is linked to increased mortality and morbidity. Ventricular arrhythmias (VA) are one of the leading causes of mortality in HF subjects. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are currently the gold standard in treatment, preventing arrhythmic sudden cardiac death (SCD) episodes. However, the death rates related to HF remain elevated, as not all HF subjects benefit equally. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has emerged as a novel approach for HF patients. These devices have been thoroughly investigated in major randomized controlled studies but continue to be underutilized in various countries. This review discusses the use of ICD in HF populations on top of treatments.

Wearable and Implantable Soft Bioelectronics: Device Designs and Material Strategies

High-performance wearable and implantable devices capable of recording physiological signals and delivering appropriate therapeutics in real time are playing a pivotal role in revolutionizing personalized healthcare. However, the mechanical and biochemical mismatches between rigid, inorganic devices and soft, organic human tissues cause significant trouble, including skin irritation, tissue damage, compromised signal-to-noise ratios, and limited service time. As a result, profuse research efforts have been devoted to overcoming these issues by using flexible and stretchable device designs and soft materials. Here, we summarize recent representative research and technological advances for soft bioelectronics, including conformable and stretchable device designs, various types of soft electronic materials, and surface coating and treatment methods. We also highlight applications of these strategies to emerging soft wearable and implantable devices. We conclude with some current limitations and offer future prospects of this booming field.

RV lead placement - A forgotten cause of right heart failure

Introduction

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have opened new doors, improving the quality, and increasing the duration of life by providing support of heart rate, atrioventricular and interventricular synchrony, thereby preventing sudden cardiac death. Nevertheless, these devices can pose some risks to the patients, including pacemaker-mediated cardiomyopathy and endocarditis.

Case presentation

We elucidate the case of a patient who had severe Tricuspid Regurgitation as a result of single chamber Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) placement which led to right heart failure (RHF). His chief complaints were generalized fatigability and difficulty climbing steps at home. He also had orthopnea but denies paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea. Despite using home diuretic regimen (Torsemide 40 gm daily), his continued to increase. He did not respond well to intravenous diuretics that time so decision was made to start Aquapheresis to which he responded very well

Discussion

TV dysfunction associated with CIED leads can be investigated and diagnosed using different techniques. These pillars of diagnostic tests include two-dimensional (2D), 3D, and Doppler echocardiography. Presence of holosystolic hepatic vein flow reversal is key in diagnosing severe TR, whereas normal antegrade systolic flow excludes the possibility of moderate and severe TR.

Conclusion

CIED leads causing tricuspid valve impairment has become increasingly recognized over the recent times; however, the evidence underlying this trend has been derived primarily from retrospective analyses. In order to circumvent these issues, leadless pacemakers and subcutaneous ICD devices should be considered.

•CIED leads causing TV dysfunction has gained increasing recognition recently but all evidence supporting this premise emanates from retrospective analyses.

•When clinical, hemodynamic, and echocardiographic assessment provides compelling evidence of lead related severe TR, corrective intervention should be provided in a timely fashion, before the onset of severe annular and chamber dilation and severe RV dysfunction because, by that time, the lead itself will no longer be the problem, and the extant problem may not be as amenable to corrective intervention.

•Leadless pacemakers and subcutaneous ICD devices likely to be associated with a reduction in lead-related cardiac dysfunction.

A Review of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections for the Practicing Electrophysiologist

Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are morbid, costly, and difficult to manage. This review explores the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of CIED infections. Diagnostic accuracy has been improved through increased awareness and improved imaging strategies. Pocket or bloodstream infection with virulent organisms often requires complete system extraction. Emerging prophylactic interventions and novel devices have expanded preventative strategies and options for re-implantation. A clear and nuanced understanding of CIED infection is important to the practicing electrophysiologist.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Can it overtake its transvenous counterpart

Over the past decade, the emergence of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) has provided cardiologists with an option to provide both primary or secondary prevention treatment of sudden cardiac death (SCD) without the associated risks that come with the use of intracardiac leads. S-ICD may prove to be a useful option in those who are young, have thromboembolic risk, immunodeficiency states, unfavorable anatomy due to adult congenital heart disease (ACHD). This article reviews the existing literature to determine whether S-ICD can prove to be a safe alternative in comparison to Transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) and in which patient population should S-ICD be considered over TV-ICD.

Rate and impact on patient outcome and healthcare utilization of complications requiring surgical revision: Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable defibrillator therapy

INTRODUCTION

Comparison data on management of device-related complications and their impact on patient outcome and healthcare utilization between subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) and transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) are lacking. We designed this prospective, multicentre, observational registry to compare the rate, nature, and impact of long-term device-related complications requiring surgical revision on patient outcome and healthcare utilization between patients undergoing S-ICD or TV-ICD implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 1099 consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD or TV-ICD implantation were enrolled. Propensity matching for baseline characteristics yielded 169 matched pairs. Rate, nature, management, and impact on patient outcome of device-related complications were analyzed and compared between two groups. During a mean follow-up of 30 months, device-related complications requiring surgical revision were observed in 20 patients: 3 in S-ICD group (1.8%) and 17 in TV-ICD group (10.1%; p = .002). Compared with TV-ICD patients, S-ICD patients showed a significantly lower risk of lead-related complications (0% vs. 5.9%; p = .002) and a similar risk of pocket-related complications (0.6 vs. 2.4; p = .215) and device infection (0.6% vs. 1.2%; p = 1.000). Complications observed in S-ICD patients resulted in a significantly lower number of complications-related rehospitalizations (median 0 vs. 1; p = .013) and additional hospital treatment days (1.0 ± 1.0 vs. 6.5 ± 4.4 days; p = .048) compared with TV-ICD patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with TV-ICD, S-ICD is associated with a lower risk of complications, mainly due to a lower risk of lead-related complications. The management of S-ICD complications requires fewer and shorter rehospitalizations.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID), and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially lifesaving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased health care costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well-recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. When compared with previous guidelines or consensus statements, the present consensus document gives guidance on the use of novel device alternatives, novel oral anticoagulants, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, as well as definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. The recognition that an international consensus document focused on management of CIED infections is lacking, the dissemination of results from new important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a Novel 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

Dutch Outcome in Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy: Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator-Related Complications in a Contemporary Primary Prevention Cohort

Background

One third of primary prevention implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator patients receive appropriate therapy, but all remain at risk of defibrillator complications. Information on these complications in contemporary cohorts is limited. This study assessed complications and their risk factors after defibrillator implantation in a Dutch nationwide prospective registry cohort and forecasts the potential reduction in complications under distinct scenarios of updated indication criteria.

Methods and Results

Complications in a prospective multicenter registry cohort of 1442 primary implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implant patients were classified as major or minor. The potential for reducing complications was derived from a newly developed prediction model of appropriate therapy to identify patients with a low probability of benefitting from the implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator. During a follow‐up of 2.2 years (interquartile range, 2.0–2.6 years), 228 complications occurred in 195 patients (13.6%), with 113 patients (7.8%) experiencing at least one major complication. Most common ones were lead related (n=93) and infection (n=18). Minor complications occurred in 6.8% of patients, with lead‐related (n=47) and pocket‐related (n=40) complications as the most prevailing ones. A surgical reintervention or additional hospitalization was required in 53% or 61% of complications, respectively. Complications were strongly associated with device type. Application of stricter implant indication results in a comparable proportional reduction of (major) complications.

Conclusions

One in 13 patients experiences at least one major implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator–related complication, and many patients undergo a surgical reintervention. Complications are related to defibrillator implantations, and these should be discussed with the patient. Stricter implant indication criteria and careful selection of device type implanted may have significant clinical and financial benefits.

Tumescent local anesthesia versus general anesthesia for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. General anesthesia (GA) is considered the standard sedation approach because of the pain caused by the manipulation of subcutaneous tissue with S-ICD implantation. However, GA carries several limitations, including additional risk of adverse events, prolonged in-room times, and increased costs.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to define the effectiveness and safety of tumescent local anesthesia (TLA) in comparison to GA in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, nonrandomized, controlled, multicenter study of patients referred for S-ICD implantation between 2019 and 2020. Patients were allocated to either TLA or GA on the basis of patient's preferences and/or anesthesia service availability. TLA was prepared using lidocaine, epinephrine, sodium bicarbonate, and sodium chloride. All patients provided written informed consent, and the institutional review board at each site provided approval for the study.

RESULTS

Sixty patients underwent successful S-ICD implantation from July 2019 to November 2020. Thirty patients (50%) received TLA, and the rest GA. There were no differences between groups with regard to baseline characteristics. In-room and procedural times were significantly shorter with TLA (107.6 minutes vs 186 minutes; P < .0001 and 53.2 minutes vs 153.7 minutes; P < .0001, respectively). Pain was reported less frequently by patients who received TLA. The use of opioids was significantly reduced in patients who received TLA (23% vs 62%; P = .002).

CONCLUSION

TLA is an effective and safe alternative to GA in S-ICD implantation. The use of TLA is associated with shorter in-room and procedural times, less postprocedural pain, and reduced usage of opioids and acetaminophen for analgesia.

Innovations in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are essential for the management of a variety of cardiac conditions, including tachyarrhythmias, bradyarrhythmias, and medically refractory heart failure (HF). Recent advancements in CIED technology have led to innovative solutions that overcome shortcomings associated with traditional devices or address unmet needs. Leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), and extravascular ICDs eliminate lead-related complications common with conventional pacemakers or ICDs. Conduction system pacing (His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing) is a more physiologic method of pacing and avoids the deleterious consequences associated with long-term right ventricular pacing. For HF-related devices, cardiac contractility modulation is an emerging therapy that bridges a gap for many patients ineligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy and has been shown to improve HF symptoms and decrease hospitalizations and mortality in select patients. Implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitors help guide HF management and reduce hospitalizations. Lastly, new phrenic nerve stimulating devices are being utilized to treat central sleep apnea, a common comorbidity associated with HF. While further long-term studies are still underway for many of these new technologies, it is anticipated that these devices will become indispensable therapeutics in the expanding cardiovascular armamentarium.

Comparing the safety of subcutaneous versus transvenous ICDs: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The use of transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (TV-ICDs) is associated with multiple risks related to the presence of the defibrillator leads within the venous system and right side of the heart, including endocarditis, venous occlusion, tricuspid regurgitation, and potential lead failure. The emergence of subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICDs) may potentially overcome the aforementioned disadvantages. However, evidence validating the safety of S-ICDs relative to TV-ICDs is limited. The present study aimed to synthesize and analyze available data from published studies to comprehensively compare transvenous and subcutaneous ICDs.

METHODS

Different databases were searched for full-text publications with a direct comparison of TV- and S-ICDs. Fixed effect models were applied to pooled data, and no study-to-study heterogeneity was detected.

RESULTS

Data from 7 studies totaling 1666 patients were pooled together. Compared to S-ICDs, the risk of suffering device-related complications was higher in patients with TV-ICDs (OR = 1.71; 95% CI: 1.23-2.38). The number of patients with an S-ICD who suffered inappropriate shocks (IS) was not significantly different than patients with a TV-ICD (OR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.65-1.30). Subgroup analysis indicated that the TV-ICD group had a higher risk of IS due to supraventricular oversensing (OR = 3.29; 95% CI: 1.92-5.63) while T-wave oversensing tending to cause IS in the S-ICD group (OR = 0.09; 95% CI: 0.03-0.23). The risk of device-related infection in the S-ICD group was not any lower than that in the TV-ICD group (OR = 1.57; 95% CI: 0.67-3.68). The survival rate without any complications during a 1-year follow-up period was similar between the 2 groups (HR = 1.23; 95% CI: 0.81-1.86), although it was assumed that the trend leaned toward more complications in patients with a TV-ICD.

CONCLUSION

The present study verified the safety of S-ICDs based on pooled data. Although there were no differences between TV- and S-ICDs in the short term, fewer adverse events were found in patients with S-ICDs during long-term follow-up.

Performance and outcome of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator after transvenous lead extraction

AIMS

The subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) may be a valuable option in patients after successful transvenous lead extraction (TLE) without indication for pacemaker therapy and persistent risk of sudden cardiac death. The aim of this study was to evaluate device performance, postoperative outcome, and safety in patients who received a S-ICD after TLE compared to patients who underwent de-novo S-ICD implantation.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients included into our institution's S-ICD database between September 2010 and May 2019 was conducted.The patients were divided in two groups, depending on whether they had received their S-ICD after TLE (n = 31) or de-novo (n = 113).

RESULTS

The TLE group was significantly older with a mean age of 54.3 ± 15.7 versus 46.7 ± 14.4 years; p = .007. Leading S-ICD indication in the TLE group was previous infection (50%), whereas in the de-novo group the S-ICD was primarily chosen due to young patient age (74.6%). Median duration of follow-up was 527.0 versus 472.5 days, respectively; p = .576. Most common complication during follow-up was inappropriate ICD therapy (12.9% vs. 13.3%); p = 1.000. Pocket erosion/infection occurred in 3.2% versus 3.5% with no reported cases of systemic (re-)infection in either group; p = 1.000. All-cause mortality was low (6.2% vs. 2.7%) and entirely unrelated to S-ICD implantation or the device itself; p = .293.

CONCLUSION

The S-ICD is a safe and effective alternative for patients after TLE with very similar results regarding device performance and postoperative outcome, when compared to patients who underwent de-novo S-ICD implantation.

Association Between Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Preimplantation Screening and the Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Background and Objectives

Preimplantation QRS-T morphology screening (TMS) is a composite tool for selecting subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) candidates. However, its role in predicting the patient's response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is uncertain.

Methods

A total of 55 consecutive de novo CRT candidates were enrolled between January 2016 and March 2017. Electrocardiogram (ECG) and TMS were performed before and soon after implantation. The ECG parameters were recorded, including QRS duration and morphology (such as ΔQRS_Index, QTc during biventricular pacing mode [BiV pacing QTc], and QRS/T ratio during biventricular pacing mode [BiV pacing QRS/T ratio]). TMS monitored three sensory vectors of the S-ICD. Six months after implantation, the responses to CRT were evaluated.

Results

Thirty-nine patients (70.9%) passed the TMS during biventricular pacing mode. At the six-month follow-up, the number of responders and super-responders was significantly higher in the passing group than in the non-passing group (responders: 31/39 [79.5%] vs. 5/16 [31.3%], p<0.001; super-responders: 9/39 [23.1%] vs. 1/16 [6.3%], p=0.020). The super-response rate was higher among patients who passed all three vectors than among those who passed 1 or 2 vectors (3 vs. 2 vectors, p=0.018; 3 vs. 1 vector, p=0.003). A smaller left atrial diameter, vectors that passed TMS during biventricular pacing mode, and larger ΔQRS_Index values were independently associated with good CRT response.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated that patients on CRT who pass the TMS during biventricular pacing mode are more likely to respond and super-respond to CRT.

Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable defibrillator: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement is a well-established therapy for prevention of sudden cardiac death. The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) was specifically designed to overcome some of the complications related to the transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD), such as lead complications and systemic infections. Evidence on the comparison of S-ICD vs TV-ICD are limited.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to conduct an updated meta-analysis comparing S-ICD vs TV-ICD.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for studies directly comparing clinical outcomes and complications between S-ICD and TV-ICD. The primary outcome was the composite of clinically relevant complications (lead, pocket, major procedural complications; device-related infections) and inappropriate shocks. Secondary outcomes included death and the individual components of the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies comprising 9073 patients were included in the analysis. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 40% ± 10%; 30% of patients were female; and 73% had an ICD implanted for primary prevention. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of the primary outcome between S-ICD and TV-ICD (odds ratio [OR] 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.19). Patients with S-ICD had lower risk of lead complications (OR 0.14; 95% CI 0.06-0.29; P <.00001) and major procedural complications (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.06-0.57; P = .003) but higher risk of pocket complications (OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.30-3.66; P = .003) compared to those with TV-ICD. No significant differences were found for the other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In patients with an indication for ICD without the need for pacing, TV-ICD and S-ICD are overall comparable in terms of the composite of clinically relevant device-related complications and inappropriate shock.

Release of high-sensitive TROPonin T by implantation of an entirely subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator compared to a conventional transvenous approach: the TROPIC registry

PURPOSE

Implantation of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has become an alternative option when a conventional transvenous approach is not suitable. The myocardial damage caused by S-ICD implantation appears to be minimal despite mandatory defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing. However, there has not been a direct comparison with the traditional transvenous placement of a single-chamber ICD (VVI-ICD). The aim of this study was to determine the extent of myocardial damage by analysing the changes in serum levels of cardiac enzymes after S-ICD implantation in comparison with VVI-ICD.

METHODS

In 43 patients who received an S-ICD system, differences in serum levels of high-sensitive troponin T (ΔhsTnT) and creatine kinase total (ΔCK) and muscle brain fraction (ΔCK-MB) were acquired by blood sampling before and the day after implantation. The control group consisted of 43 patients from the TropShock study who had received a transvenous VVI-ICD without DFT.

RESULTS

After S-ICD implantation and testing procedure, ΔhsTnT (0.000 ng/ml, IQR - 0.003-0.002 ng/ml) was significantly lower than after conventional VVI-ICD implantation (0.018 ng/ml, IQR 0.004-0.032 ng/ml; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in CK (ΔCK_S-ICD 85.0 U/I, IQR 30.5-225.8 U/I vs ΔCK_VVI-ICD 69.5 U/I, IQR 22.9-172.3 U/I; p = 0.357), but there was a significant difference in CK-MB (ΔCK-MB_S-ICD of - 0.60, IQR - 2.60-1.0 vs ΔCK-MB_VVI-ICD 1.0, IQR - 1.08-3.18; p = 0.030).

CONCLUSION

S-ICD implantation causes less myocardial damage than VVI-ICD implantation evidenced by ΔhsTnT and ΔCK-MB.

The subcutaneous ICD for prevention of sudden cardiac death: Current evidence and future directions

Despite major advances in medical therapy, sudden cardiac death remains an important cause of cardiovascular mortality. In order to improve the risk-benefit balance of transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) systems, a totally subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) system was developed and approved for use in Europe in 2009. The currently available S-ICD system has undergone several important hardware- and software-related modifications and improvements over the last 10 years aimed at further improving its efficacy and safety. The results of the PRAETORIAN trial, that is, the first randomized comparison of S-ICD versus transvenous ICDs, of the prospective UNTOUCHED study, and the overall consistent observational data underline that current generation S-ICD systems may be a valid alternative in patients with an ICD indication in whom bradycardia pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy is not required due to a lower risk of system-related problems. This review summarizes the key differences between the two systems, improvements in hardware components and algorithms over time, as well as most recent clinical evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of the S-ICD.

Comparison of transvenous vs subcutaneous defibrillator therapy in patients with cardiac arrhythmia syndromes and genetic cardiomyopathies

BACKGROUND

Inherited arrhythmia syndromes and genetic cardiomyopathies attribute in a significant proportion to sudden cardiac death. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are the cornerstone in the prevention of sudden death in high-risk patients. However, ICD therapy is also associated with high rates of inappropriate shocks and/or device-related complications especially in young patients.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the outcome of high-risk patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes and genetic cardiomyopathies comparing two defibrillator technologies.

METHOD

Between 2010 and 2018, 183 consecutive patients from two large German tertiary care centers were enrolled in the study. The majority of patients (83%) had either cardiac channelopathies or idiopathic ventricular fibrillation without cardiac structural abnormalities, while the remaining 17% had a genetic cardiomyopathy (HCM/ARVC). Eighty-six patients (47%) received a transvenous ICD (TV-ICD), while a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) was implanted in another 97 patients (53%).

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, 30 patients had an appropriate ICD therapy (annual rate 3.8%). Fifteen patients experienced an inappropriate shock (annual rate 1.9%). Lead failure occurred in 17 (9%) patients and was less frequent in the S-ICD group (OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.38-0.62). Adverse defibrillator events, defined as a composite of inappropriate shocks and lead failure requiring surgical revision were significantly lower in the S-ICD group as compared to the TV-ICD group (OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.41-0.72). There was a non-significant trend towards lower appropriate shocks in the S-ICD group, that in combination with all-cause shocks yielded in a significantly higher freedom of any shock in the S-ICD group (RR 39%, p = 0.003). No deaths occurred during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The present data favor the use of the subcutaneous ICD for patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes and genetic cardiomyopathies who do not need anti-bradycardia pacing.