Direct comparison of the novel automated screening tool (AST) versus the manual screening tool (MST) in patients with already implanted subcutaneous ICD

Abstract

BackgroundThe subcutaneous implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (S-ICD) has evolved as a valuable alternative to the transvenous ICD, especially in young patients. Unfortunately, some of these patients are ineligible for S-ICD implantation due to specific electrocardiographic features. So far, these patients were identified by mandatory pre-implantation screening using the manual screening tool (MST), which lacks objective value. Therefore, a novel automated screening tool (AST) has been introduced recently for objective screening, which has not been evaluated yet. Methods/resultsWe here first investigate the novel AST, in direct comparison to MST, in 33 consecutive patients with already implanted S-ICD system to compare predicted eligibility by screening tools with true sensing of the S-ICD system. Both screening tools reliably predicted true ineligible single vectors, but also suggested overall ineligibility in a similar fraction of patients (MST: 3.0%; AST: 6.1%), albeit the implanted S-ICD worked flawlessly in these patients. AST did not predict the finally selected sensing vector better than MST. There was a surprising mismatch between AST and MST for the predicted eligibility of single vectors; only in 49% of patients did both screening tools predict eligibility for the same vectors. ConclusionsThe novel AST predicted overall eligibility approximately similar to MST. Both tools predicted ineligibility in a few patients, who were actually eligible. There was a striking mismatch between both screening tools when eligibility of single vectors was predicted. Thus, the AST seems to be a valuable advance, due to its standardized and objective process, but it still lacks specificity.