Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Patients Research Articles

Eligibility for the Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.

High-risk hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) patients benefit from the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) may provide comparable protection while avoiding the shortcomings of transvenous (TV) leads. We assessed S-ICD eligibility according to surface ECG screening test in a cohort of high-risk HCM patients. 47 HCM patients (3 S-ICD candidates; 41 TV-ICD patients without pacing indication; and 3 pacemaker-dependent TV-ICD patients) underwent 4 screening protocols: standard (n = 44); exercise (n = 33); continuous pacing (n = 44); alternating paced/spontaneous QRS (n = 41). Of the 44 patients in the standard screening group, 41 (93%) were eligible. Max LV thickness was inversely related to the number of qualifying leads (3 leads: 21 ± 4 mm; 2 leads: 22 ± 6 mm; 1 lead: 25 ± 6 mm; no leads: 28 ± 11 mm; P = 0.07). Of the 33 patients in the exercise group, 5 were ineligible (3 after exercise). Of these, 2 became eligible after moving sternal electrodes from the left to the right parasternal line (eligibility rate: 30/33; 91%). Of the 44 patients in the continuous pacing group, 28 (64%) were eligible, 8 of which with right parasternal electrodes. In the paced/spontaneous QRS group (n = 41), 21 patients (51%) had at least 1 eligible lead during pacing and retained compatibility on the same lead during spontaneous rhythm, 5 of which with right parasternal electrodes. S-ICD screening failure is low in HCM, provided that patients with severe hypertrophy are carefully evaluated. Exercise test should be performed and right parasternal leads tested. Pacemaker patients display lower eligibility rate.

Inappropriate shocks in the subcutaneous ICD: Incidence, predictors and management

BackgroundThe entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) eliminates the need for transvenous leads, and therefore has the potential to improve lead-longevity and reduce lead-related complications. The S-ICD has a morphology-based sensing algorithm of which inappropriate shocks have been reported. MethodsWe analyzed the incidence, predictors and management of inappropriate shocks in the EFFORTLESS S-ICD Registry, which collects S-ICD implantation information and follow-up data from clinical centers in Europe and New Zealand. ResultsDuring a follow-up of 21±13months, 48 out of 581 S-ICD patients (71% male, age 49±18years) experienced 101 inappropriate shocks (8.3%). The most common cause was cardiac signal oversensing (73%), such as T-wave oversensing. Eighteen shocks (18%) were due to supraventricular tachycardias (SVT), of which 15 occurred in the shock-only zone. Cox-proportional hazard modeling using time-dependent covariates demonstrated that patients with a history of atrial fibrillation (HR 2.4) and patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HR 4.6) had an increased risk for inappropriate shocks, while programming the primary vector for sensing (from xyphoid to V6) reduced the risk. Reprogramming or optimization of SVT treatment after the first clinical event of inappropriate shock was successful in preventing further inappropriate shocks for cardiac oversensing and SVT events. ConclusionsInappropriate shocks, mainly due to cardiac oversensing, occurred in 8.3% of the S-ICD patients. Patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or a history of atrial fibrillation were at increased risk, warranting specific attention for sensing and programming in this population.

Use of an electrocardiographic screening tool to determine candidacy for a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

An electrocardiographic (ECG) screening test has been developed to identify patients being considered for a totally subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) at risk for T-wave oversensing. The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion of potential S-ICD recipients who fail the ECG screening test and to identify predictors of failure. Patients who already have an ICD but are not receiving antibradycardia pacing are representative of patients who might be considered for an S-ICD. One hundred such outpatients were enrolled in the study. Surface rhythm strips were recorded along the sensing vectors of the S-ICD system and the screening template applied. Clinical and standard ECG characteristics of patients who failed the test were compared to those who passed. Patients had the following characteristics: 72% male, age 57 ± 16 years, body mass index 29 ± 6 kg/m(2), left ventricular ejection fraction 43% ± 17%, QRS duration 109 ± 23 ms, QTc interval 447 ± 39 ms, 44% had coronary disease, and 55% had heart failure. Among the 100 patients, 8% failed the screening test. There were no differences in patient clinical characteristics and most standard ECG measurements. However, patients with T-wave inversions in standard ECG leads I, II, and aVF had a 45% chance of failing. Eight percent of potential S-ICD patients were not eligible for the S-ICD after failing the screening test designed to identify patients susceptible to T-wave oversensing. Patients with T-wave inversions in leads I, II, and aVF on a standard ECG were 23 times more likely to fail. More work is needed in S-ICD sensing algorithms to increase patient eligibility for the S-ICD.