The impact of supraventricular arrhythmias on the outcomes of guideline-compliant implantable cardioverter defibrillator programming.

INTRODUCTION: Several implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) programming strategies are applied to minimize ICD therapy, especially unnecessary therapies from supraventricular arrhythmias (SVA). However, it remains unknown whether these optimal programming recommendations only benefit those with SVAs or have any detrimental effects from delayed therapy on those without SVAs. This study aims to assess the impact of SVA on the outcomes of ICD programming based on 2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement and 2019 focused update on optimal ICD programming and testing guidelines. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent ICD insertion for primary prevention were classified into four groups based on SVA status and ICD programming: (1) guideline-concordant group (GC) with SVA, (2) GC without SVA, (3) nonguideline concordant group (NGC) with SVA, and (4) NGC without SVA. Cox proportional hazard models were analyzed for freedom from ICD therapies, shock, and mortality. RESULTS: Seven hundred and seventy-two patients (median age, 64 years) were enrolled. ICD therapies were the most frequent in NGC with SVA (24.0%), followed by NGC without SVA (19.9%), GC without SVA (11.6%), and GC with SVA (8.1%). Guideline concordant programming was associated with 68% ICD therapy reduction (HR 0.32, p = .007) and 67% ICD shock reduction (HR 0.33, p = .030) in SVA patients and 44% ICD therapy reduction in those without SVA (HR 0.56, p = .030). CONCLUSION: Programming ICDs in primary prevention patients based on current guidelines reduces therapy burden without increasing mortality in both SVA and non-SVA patients. A greater magnitude of reduced ICD therapy was found in those with supraventricular arrhythmias.

Optimal Timing of Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Background: Prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) early after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is still a challenge, without clear recommendations in spite of the high incidence of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, as implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) placement is not indicated in the first 40 days after an AMI; this timing is aleatory and it is owed to fact that the two pivotal studies for evaluation of ICDs in primary prevention, MADIT and MADIT II, excluded the patients within three, respectively four weeks after AMI. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, single-center study that included 77 patients with AMI. All patients were monitored by continuous ECG in the first week after the event. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed at discharge and 40 days after the event. Patients with ejection fraction of 35% or less as assessed by 2D echocardiography 40 days after the MI, which received an ICD for the primary prevention of SCD, were included in the study. The subjects were followed for a median of 38 months, by means of device interrogation and echocardiography. Results: We divided our patients into two groups: in the first group, with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) under 30% after MI, all patients remained in the reduced ejection fraction heart failure category, with an increase from an initial mean of 18.93 ± 4.99% to a mean of 22.18 ± 4.53% after a period of 40 days; we obtained a positive and statistically significant correlation (p < 0.001 and r - 0.547), and all patients presented indication of ICD implant 40 day after MI. In the second group with LVEF between 30% and 35% after MI, the mean LVEF increased from an initial mean of 31.73 ± 1.33% to a mean of 32.33 ± 1.49% after a period of 40 days. A statistically significant correlation (p - 0.02 and r - 0.78) was obtained, although 3 patients presented a LVEF over 35% at 40 days post-MI. Most of the ICD therapies (14.54%) appeared in patients with LVEF < 30% and these patients also presented a higher percentage of NSVT at initial ECG monitoring (54% vs. 50%) and NSVT at ICD interrogation (80% vs. 66.7%); statistical significance was not reached - p > 0.05. The majority of the ICD therapies (11.9% from 13.4%) appeared in patients with NSVT at initial ECG monitoring; also, these presented an increased number of NSVT at ICD interrogation (77.6% vs. 6%) when compared to patients without VT detection at the initial ECG monitoring. Still, statistical significance was not reached - p > 0.15. Conclusions: The patients could benefit from ICD implant earlier than stated in the actual guidelines, since there are insufficient data in the literature for the waiting time of 40 days. Correlated with the increased risk of SCD in the first months post myocardial infarction, the present study proves the benefit of early ICD implantation considering that all our patients with a low ejection fraction immediately after infarction remained in the same category and the great majority (96.1%) required the implantation of an ICD after 40 days. Thus, we could avoid exposing our patients at risk of SCD for an unnecessary prolonged period, and choose early ICD implantation.

Appropriate and Inappropriate ICD Shocks in Patients with LVADS: Prevalence, Associated Factors, and Etiologies.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks are a common complication following Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) implantation; however, there is limited data on their frequency and causes. OBJECTIVE: To define the incidence, programming, patient characteristics, and factors associated with appropriate and inappropriate ICD shocks in persons with LVADs. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review at Duke University Hospital of all LVAD recipients implanted between January 1, 2013 to June 30, 2019 with a pre-existing ICD. ICD shocks were adjudicated by the treating physician and a 2nd reviewer for the purpose of this study. RESULTS: Among 421 patients with an ICD in situ undergoing LVAD implant, 147 (33.9%) patients had at least one shock following LVAD implantation. Among 134 patients with complete device history, there were a total of 330 shock episodes: 255 (77.3%) appropriate and 75 (22.7%) inappropriate. Etiologies for inappropriate shocks included SVT (n=66, 20.0%), physiologic oversensing (n=1, 0.3%), and non-physiologic oversensing (n=8, 2.4%) including LVAD electromagnetic interference (n=1, 0.3%). ICD programming with shorter detection delay (p < 0.001) and absence of anti-tachycardia pacing programming (p = 0.001) in high-rate zones was seen more commonly in inappropriate shock than appropriate shock. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of inappropriate shocks in LVAD recipients is very high and is most often due to supraventricular arrhythmias. LVAD electromagnetic interference is a rare cause of ICD shock. Implementation of current consensus AHA recommendations for LVAD programming with long detection delays and high rate cutoffs may help avoid inappropriate ICD shocks.