Primary Results From the Understanding Outcomes With the S-ICD in Primary Prevention Patients With Low Ejection Fraction (UNTOUCHED) Trial.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous (S) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is safe and effective for sudden cardiac death prevention. However, patients in previous S-ICD studies had fewer comorbidities, had less left ventricular dysfunction, and received more inappropriate shocks (IAS) than in typical transvenous ICD trials. The UNTOUCHED trial (Understanding Outcomes With the S-ICD in Primary Prevention Patients With Low Ejection Fraction) was designed to evaluate the IAS rate in a more typical, contemporary ICD patient population implanted with the S-ICD using standardized programming and enhanced discrimination algorithms. METHODS: Primary prevention patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and no pacing indications were included. Generation 2 or 3 S-ICD devices were implanted and programmed with rate-based therapy delivery for rates ≥250 beats per minute and morphology discrimination for rates ≥200 and <250 beats per minute. Patients were followed for 18 months. The primary end point was the IAS-free rate compared with a 91.6% performance goal, derived from the results for the ICD-only patients in the MADIT-RIT study (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Reduce Inappropriate Therapy). Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to evaluate event-free rates for IAS, all-cause shock, and complications. Multivariable proportional hazard analysis was performed to determine predictors of end points. RESULTS: S-ICD implant was attempted in 1116 patients, and 1111 patients were included in postimplant follow-up analysis. The cohort had a mean age of 55.8±12.4 years, 25.6% were women, 23.4% were Black, 53.5% had ischemic heart disease, 87.7% had symptomatic heart failure, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 26.4±5.8%. Eighteen-month freedom from IAS was 95.9% (lower confidence limit, 94.8%). Predictors of reduced incidence of IAS were implanting the most recent generation of device, using the 3-incision technique, no history of atrial fibrillation, and ischemic cause. The 18-month all-cause shock-free rate was 90.6% (lower confidence limit, 89.0%), meeting the prespecified performance goal of 85.8%. Conversion success rate for appropriate, discrete episodes was 98.4%. Complication-free rate at 18 months was 92.7%. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates high efficacy and safety with contemporary S-ICD devices and programming despite the relatively high incidence of comorbidities in comparison with earlier S-ICD trials. The inappropriate shock rate (3.1% at 1 year) is the lowest reported for the S-ICD and lower than many transvenous ICD studies using contemporary programming to reduce IAS. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02433379.

Novel two-lead cardiac resynchronization therapy system provides equivalent CRT responses with less complications than a conventional three-lead system: Results from the QP ExCELs lead registry.

INTRODUCTION: The novel two-lead cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-DX system utilizes a floating atrial dipole on the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead, and when implanted with a left ventricular (LV) lead, offers a two-lead CRT system with AV synchrony. This study compared complication rates and CRT response among subjects implanted with a two-lead CRT-DX system to those subjects implanted with a standard three-lead CRT-D system. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 240 subjects from the Sentus QP-Extended CRT Evaluation with Quadripolar Left Ventricular Leads postapproval study were selected to identify 120 matched pairs based on similar demographic characteristics using a Greedy algorithm. The complication-free rate was evaluated as the primary endpoint. All-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, device diagnostic data, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class improvement, and defibrillator therapy were evaluated from clinical data, in-office interrogations, and remote monitoring throughout the follow-up period. Complication-free survival favored the CRT-DX group with 92.5% without a major complication compared to 85.0% in the CRT-D cohort (P = .0495; 95% confidence interval: 0.1%-14.9%) over a mean follow-up of 1.3 and 1.4 years, respectively. Incidence of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, NYHA changes at 6 months postimplant, and percent of LV pacing during CRT therapy were similar in both device cohorts. Inappropriate shocks were more frequent in the CRT-D cohort with 5.8% of subjects receiving an inappropriate shock vs 0.8% in the CRT-DX cohort. CONCLUSION: The results of this subanalysis demonstrate that the CRT-DX system can provide similar CRT responses and significantly fewer complications when compared to a similar cohort with a conventional three-lead CRT-D system.

R-wave sensing in an implantable cardiac monitor without ECG-based preimplant mapping: results from a multicenter clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Reducing the form factor of an implantable cardiac monitor (ICM) may simplify device implant. This study evaluated R-wave sensing at a range of electrode distances and a preferred device implant location without mapping. METHODS: Patients scheduled for a Medtronic Reveal® ICM implant (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) underwent a preimplant pocket recording using a diagnostic recording catheter. The ICM implant location was left to the discretion of the implanting physician, but a "recommended" position spanned the V2 -V3 electrocardiogram electrode location in an oblique 45° angle. R-wave amplitudes were analyzed from ICM follow-up. RESULTS: Seventeen of 41 subjects (15 male, age 57 ± 16 years) had the maximum surface-filtered R-wave at the recommended location. Fourteen patients underwent diagnostic recording across the range of electrode spacing. There was a strong correlation between the R-wave amplitude and electrode distance (r(2) = 0.97, P < 0.001) with an increase of 29 µV per 2.5 mm. Comparing normalized R-wave distributions between the recommended ICM implant group (Group 1, n = 19) and the remaining patients (Group 2, n = 7), the proportion of ICM R-wave counts of amplitude 0.25-1.2 mV was higher (79% vs 46%, P < 0.05). Of 17 patients in Group 1 who had ≥ 1-month ICM follow-up (79 ± 45 days), no sensing-related false arrhythmia detection was found in 16 (93%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: The subcutaneous R-wave amplitude correlates with electrode spacing in the implant zone of ICM patients. Implant locations at the V2 -V3 position at a 45° angle offer an adequate R wave for sensing. Preimplant mapping to achieve acceptable R-wave amplitude may not be necessary.

Predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for defibrillation test success in patients with subcutaneous ICD: A subanalysis of the PRAETORIAN-DFT trial.

BACKGROUND: The PRAETORIAN score estimates the risk of failure of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) therapy by using generator and lead positioning on bidirectional chest radiographs. The PRospective randomized compArative trial of subcutanEous implanTable cardiOverter-defibrillatoR ImplANtation with and without DeFibrillation Testing (PRAETORIAN-DFT) investigates whether PRAETORIAN score calculation is noninferior to defibrillation testing (DFT) with regard to first shock efficacy in spontaneous events. OBJECTIVE: This prespecified subanalysis assessed the predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for defibrillation success in induced ventricular arrhythmias. METHODS: This multicenter investigator-initiated trial randomized 965 patients between DFT and PRAETORIAN score calculation after de novo S-ICD implantation. Successful DFT was defined as conversion of induced ventricular arrhythmia in <5 seconds from shock delivery within 2 attempts. Bidirectional chest radiographs were obtained after implantation. The predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for DFT success was calculated for patients in the DFT arm. RESULTS: In total, 482 patients were randomized to undergo DFT. Of these patients, 457 (95%) underwent DFT according to protocol, of whom 445 (97%) had successful DFT and 12 (3%) had failed DFT. A PRAETORIAN score of ≥90 had a positive predictive value of 25% for failed DFT, and a PRAETORIAN score of <90 had a negative predictive value of 99% for successful DFT. A PRAETORIAN score of ≥90 was the strongest independent predictor for failed DFT (odds ratio 33.77; confidence interval 6.13-279.95; P < .001). CONCLUSION: A PRAETORIAN score of <90 serves as a reliable indicator for DFT success in patients with S-ICD, and a PRAETORIAN score of ≥90 is a strong predictor for DFT failure.

Real-world Adoption of Smartphone-based Remote Monitoring Using the Confirm Rx™ Insertable Cardiac Monitor.

While previous generations of insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) required a bedside monitor for remote monitoring (RM), the Confirm Rx™ ICM (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA) utilizes Bluetooth®, Wi-Fi/cellular technology, and a smart device to connect to the RM system. We aimed to characterize compliance, connectivity, and event transmission timing with the Confirm Rx™ ICM RM system. The study cohort included American patients who received the Confirm Rx™ ICM with SharpSense™ technology within three months of release (May-July 2019). Compliance with RM was quantified as the proportion of patients registering the patient app on their smart device and transmitting at least once. Connectivity was measured as the median number of days between consecutive transmissions per patient. Event transmission time was measured from episode detection to availability on the Merlin.net™ RM system (Abbott). Time from transmission until review by a clinician was examined. Values for device connectivity, episode transmission timing, and clinician view times were reported as median [first quartile, third quartile]. Of 5,666 patients who received a Confirm Rx™ ICM, 97% registered their patient app and 92% transmitted data at least once. Among those utilizing RM (aged 66 ± 15 years; 49% female), connectivity occurred every 1.5 [1.2, 2.4] days, or 4.7 times per week. Patient-reported symptoms were transmitted to Merlin.net™ within 2.9 [2.1, 3.8] minutes of event onset and viewed by the clinician within 0.9 [0.4, 3.1] days, while device-detected episodes without symptoms were transmitted within 18.5 [11.2, 36.5] hours and then viewed within 0.8 [0.3, 2.5] days. This real-world study demonstrated excellent patient compliance with the smartphone-based RM paradigm enabled by Confirm Rx™, suggesting the suitability of this technology for future cardiac implantable devices.

Performance of first pacemaker to use smart device app for remote monitoring.

BACKGROUND: High adherence to remote monitoring (RM) in pacemaker (PM) patients improves outcomes; however, adherence remains suboptimal. Bluetooth low-energy (BLE) technology in newer-generation PMs enables communication directly with patient-owned smart devices using an app without a bedside console. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the success rate of scheduled RM transmissions using the app compared to other RM methods. METHODS: The BlueSync Field Evaluation was a prospective, international cohort evaluation, measuring the success rate of scheduled RM transmissions using a BLE PM or cardiac resynchronization therapy PM coupled with the MyCareLink Heart app. App transmission success was compared to 3 historical "control" groups from the Medtronic de-identified CareLink database: (1) PM patients with manual communication using a wand with a bedside console (PM manual transmission), (2) PM patients with wireless automatic communication with the bedside console (PM wireless); (3) defibrillator patients with similar automatic communication (defibrillator wireless). RESULTS: Among 245 patients enrolled (age 64.8±15.6 years, 58.4% men), 953 transmissions were scheduled through 12 months, of which 902 (94.6%) were successfully completed. In comparison, transmission success rates were 56.3% for PM manual transmission patients, 77.0% for PM wireless patients, and 87.1% for defibrillator wireless patients. Transmission success with the app was superior across matched cohorts based on age, sex, and device type (single vs dual vs triple chamber). CONCLUSION: The success rate of scheduled RM transmissions was higher among patients using the smart device app compared to patients using traditional RM using bedside consoles. This novel technology may improve patient engagement and adherence to RM.

Understanding Outcomes with the EMBLEM S-ICD in Primary Prevention Patients with Low EF Study (UNTOUCHED): Clinical characteristics and perioperative results.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has shown favorable outcomes in large registries with broad inclusion criteria. The cohorts reported had less heart disease and fewer comorbidities than standard ICD populations. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to characterize acute performance for primary prevention patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% (primary prevention ≤35%). METHODS: Primary prevention ≤35% patients with no prior documented sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), pacing indication, end-stage heart failure, or advanced renal failure were prospectively enrolled. Analyses included descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier time to event, and multivariable linear and logistic regression. RESULTS: In 1112 of 1116 patients, an S-ICD was successfully implanted (99.6%). Predictors for longer procedure time included 3-incision technique, higher body mass index (BMI), performing defibrillation testing (DFT), imaging, younger age, black race, and European vs North American centers. Patients undergoing DFT (82%) were successfully converted (99.2%; 93.5% converting at ≤65 J). Higher BMI was predictive of failing DFT at ≤65 J. The rate of 30-day freedom from complications was 95.8%. Most complications involved postoperative healing (45%) or interventions after DFT or impedance check (19%). CONCLUSION: The procedural outcome data of UNTOUCHED reinforce that S-ICD therapy has low perioperative complication rates and high conversion efficacy of induced ventricular fibrillation, even in a higher-risk cohort with low LVEF and more comorbidities than previous S-ICD studies. Higher BMI warrants more careful attention to implant technique.

Decreasing body temperature predicts early rehospitalization in congestive heart failure.

BACKGROUND: In congestive heart failure (CHF), a low body temperature at hospital admission predicts in-hospital mortality. We hypothesized that a postdischarge reduction in body temperature predicts early CHF rehospitalization and death. METHODS: We reviewed the records of 198 patients discharged after CHF hospitalization. We categorized the patients as hypothermic or normothermic (cutoff point, 36.3 degrees C/97.4 degrees F) according to body temperature at discharge. We classified the 2 groups according to the direction of temperature change between discharge and the first follow-up visit: normothermic/non-decreasing temperature (N+), normothermic/decreasing temperature (N-), hypothermic/non-decreasing temperature (H+), and hypothermic/decreasing temperature (H-). RESULTS: Ninety-three patients (47%) had decreasing temperatures, and 105 patients (53%) had non-decreasing temperatures. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a significant intergroup difference in survival (P = .01) and rehospitalization time (P = .005). On logistic regression, a decreasing temperature was significantly associated with rehospitalization within 180 days (odds ratio, 4.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-10.02; P = .003). On Cox regression, the hazard ratios for death were 3.19 (P = .07), 6.49 (P = .004), and 5.17 (P = .07), for the N-, H+, and H- groups, respectively, versus the N+ group. For rehospitalization time, the hazard ratios were 7.02 (P = .01), 4.24 (P = .08), and 13.43 (P = .005) for the N-, H+, and H- groups, respectively, versus the N+ group. CONCLUSION: Decreasing body temperatures can predict readmission, decreased time to rehospitalization, and (in combination with hypothermia) decreased survival.

Feasibility and safety of dabigatran versus warfarin for periprocedural anticoagulation in patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: results from a multicenter prospective registry.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of periprocedural dabigatran during atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. BACKGROUND: AF ablation requires optimal periprocedural anticoagulation for minimizing bleeding and thromboembolic complications. The safety and efficacy of dabigatran as a periprocedural anticoagulant for AF ablation are unknown. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, observational study from a prospective registry including all consecutive patients undergoing AF ablation in 8 high-volume centers in the United States. All patients receiving dabigatran therapy who underwent AF ablation on periprocedural dabigatran, with the dose held on the morning of the procedure, were matched by age, sex, and type of AF with an equal number of patients undergoing AF ablation with uninterrupted warfarin therapy over the same period. RESULTS: A total of 290 patients, including 145 taking periprocedural dabigatran and an equal number of matched patients taking uninterrupted periprocedural warfarin, were included in the study. The mean age was 60 years with 79% being male and 57% having paroxysmal AF. Both groups had a similar CHADS(2) score, left atrial size, and left ventricular ejection fraction. Three thromboembolic complications (2.1%) occurred in the dabigatran group compared with none in the warfarin group (p = 0.25). The dabigatran group had a significantly higher major bleeding rate (6% vs. 1%; p = 0.019), total bleeding rate (14% vs. 6%; p = 0.031), and composite of bleeding and thromboembolic complications (16% vs. 6%; p = 0.009) compared with the warfarin group. Dabigatran use was confirmed as an independent predictor of bleeding or thromboembolic complications (odds ratio: 2.76, 95% confidence interval: 1.22 to 6.25; p = 0.01) on multivariate regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing AF ablation, periprocedural dabigatran use significantly increases the risk of bleeding or thromboembolic complications compared with uninterrupted warfarin therapy.