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

Comparison of infection and complication rates associated with transvenous vs. subcutaneous defibrillators in patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease: a multicenter long-term retrospective follow-up

Background

Patients with progressive chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at higher risk of infections and complications from cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). In patients with a primary or secondary prophylactic indication, implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICD) can prevent sudden cardiac deaths (SCD). We retrospectively compared transvenous-ICD (TV-ICD) and intermuscularly implanted subcutaneous-ICD (S-ICD) associated infections and complication rates together with hospitalizations in recipients with stage 4 kidney disease.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 70 patients from six German centers with stage 4 CKD who received either a prophylactic TV-ICD with a single right ventricular lead, 49 patients, or a S-ICD, 21 patients. Follow-Ups (FU) were performed bi-annually.

Results

The TV-ICD patients were significantly older. This group had more patients with a history of atrial arrhythmias and more were prescribed anti-arrhythmic medication compared with the S-ICD group. There were no significant differences for other baseline characteristics. The median and interquartile range of FU durations were 55.2 (57.6-69.3) months. During FU, patients with a TV-ICD system experienced significantly more device associated infections (n = 8, 16.3% vs. n = 0; p < 0.05), device-associated complications (n = 13, 26.5% vs. n = 1, 4.8%; p < 0.05) and device associated hospitalizations (n = 10, 20.4% vs. n = 1, 4.8%; p < 0.05).

Conclusion

In this long-term FU of patients with stage 4 CKD and an indication for a prophylactic ICD, the S-ICD was associated with significantly fewer device associated infections, complications and hospitalizations compared with TV-ICDs.

Performance of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (S-ICD) in Chinese Population with Primary Prevention Indications: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study

BACKGROUND International studies have shown that use of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) could reduce lead-related complications while maintaining adequate defibrillation performance; however, data from the Chinese population or other Asian groups are limited. MATERIAL AND METHODS SCOPE is a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study. Two hundred patients with primary prevention indication for sudden cardiac death (SCD), who are candidates for S-ICD, will be enrolled. From the same population, another 200 patients who are candidates for transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) will be enrolled after being matched for age, sex, SCD high-risk etiology (ischemic cardiomyopathy, and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, ion channel disease, and other) and atrial fibrillation in a 1: 1 ratio with enrolled S-ICD patients. All the patients will be followed for 18 months under standard of care. RESULTS The primary endpoint is proportion of patients free from inappropriate shock (IAS) at 18 months in the S-ICD group. The lower 95% confidence bound of the proportion will be compared with a performance goal of 90.3%, which was derived from the previous meta-analysis. The comparisons between S-ICD and TV-ICD on IAS, appropriate shock, and complications will be used as secondary endpoints without formal assumptions. CONCLUSIONS This is the first prospective multicenter study focusing on the long-term performance of S-ICD in a Chinese population. By comparing with the data derived from international historical studies and a matched TV-ICD group, data from SCOPE will allow for the assessment of S-ICD in the Chinese population in a contemporary real-world implantation level and programming techniques, which will help us to further modify the device implantation and programming protocol in this specific population in the future.

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.

The Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: A Patient Perspective

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is a new technology for the management of ICD patients. But what is the patients' perspective? Previous studies on the transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) showed that device implantation is related not only to anxiety and depression because of the fear of ICD shocks, but also to many biopsychosocial factors like body image changes, perceived reduction of socialization and limitation in professional and sports activities. Anxiety and distress are more evident in younger women because of aesthetic reasons. The scar size and the position of the S-ICD can help these patients and positively influence their social relationships. Moreover, the position of the S-ICD reduces possible complications from catheters due to stress injury and can improve patients' professional life by avoiding some work activity limitations. An S-ICD can be also a good option for athletes in avoiding subclavian crash and reducing inappropriate shocks. However, some questions remain unsolved because an S-ICD is not suitable for patients with indications for pacing, cardiac resynchronization therapy or anti-tachycardia pacing. In conclusion, the use of an S-ICD can assist physicians in reducing the negative impact of implantation on the well-being of some groups of patients by helping them to avoid depression and anxiety as well as improving their noncompliance with their medical treatment.

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.

Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator among drug-induced type-1 ECG pattern Brugada syndrome: a propensity score matching analysis from IBRYD study

No real-world data are available about the complications rate in drug-induced type 1 Brugada Syndrome (BrS) patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Aim of our study is to compare the device-related complications, infections, and inappropriate therapies among drug-induced type 1 BrS patients with transvenous- ICD (TV-ICD) versus subcutaneous-ICD (S-ICD). Data for this study were sourced from the IBRYD (Italian BRugada sYnDrome) registry which includes 619 drug-induced type-1 BrS patients followed at 20 Italian tertiary referral hospitals. For the present analysis, we selected 258 consecutive BrS patients implanted with ICD. 198 patients (76.7%) received a TV-ICD, while 60 a S-ICD (23.4%). And were followed-up for a median time of 84.3 [46.5-147] months. ICD inappropriate therapies were experienced by 16 patients (6.2%). 14 patients (7.1%) in the TVICD group and 2 patients (3.3%) in S-ICD group (log-rank P = 0.64). ICD-related complications occurred in 31 patients (12%); 29 (14.6%) in TV-ICD group and 2 (3.3%) in S-ICD group (log-rank P = 0.41). ICD-related infections occurred in 10 patients (3.88%); 9 (4.5%) in TV-ICD group and 1 (1.8%) in S-ICD group (log-rank P = 0.80). After balancing for potential confounders using the propensity score matching technique, no differences were found in terms of clinical outcomes between the two groups. In a real-world setting of drug-induced type-1 BrS patients with ICD, no significant differences in inappropriate ICD therapies, device-related complications, and infections were shown among S-ICD vs TV-ICD. However, a reduction in lead-related complications was observed in the S-ICD group. In conclusion, our evidence suggests that S-ICD is at least non-inferior to TV-ICD in this population and may also reduce the risk of lead-related complications which can expose the patients to the necessity of lead extractions.

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.