Sex differences among subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients: a propensity-matched, multicentre, international analysis from the i-SUSI project.

AIMS: Women have been historically underrepresented in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) trials. No data on sex differences regarding subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICD) carriers have been described. Aim of our study was to investigate sex-related differences among unselected S-ICD recipients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients enrolled in the multicentre, international i-SUSI registry were analysed. Comparisons between sexes were performed using a 1:1 propensity matching adjusted analysis for age, body mass index (BMI), left ventricular function, and substrate. The primary outcome was the rate of appropriate shocks during follow-up. Inappropriate shocks and other device-related complications were deemed secondary outcomes. A total of 1698 patients were extracted from the i-SUSI registry; 399 (23.5%) were females. After propensity matching, two cohorts of 374 patients presenting similar baseline characteristics were analysed. Despite similar periprocedural characteristics and a matched BMI, women resulted at lower risk of conversion failure as per PRAETORIAN score (73.4% vs. 81.3%, P = 0.049). Over a median follow-up time of 26.5 [12.7-42.5] months, appropriate shocks were more common in the male cohort (rate/year 3.4% vs. 1.7%; log-rank P = 0.049), while no significant differences in device-related complications (rate/year: 6.3% vs. 5.8%; log-rank P = 0.595) and inappropriate shocks (rate/year: 4.3% vs. 3.1%; log-rank P = 0.375) were observed. After controlling for confounders, sex remained significantly associated with the primary outcome (aHR 1.648; CI 0.999-2.655, P = 0.048), while not resulting predictor of inappropriate shocks and device-related complications. CONCLUSION: In a propensity-matched cohort of S-ICD recipients, women are less likely to experience appropriate ICD therapy, while not showing higher risk of device-related complications. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0473876.

Impact of ventricular tachycardia ablation in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator carriers: a multicentre, international analysis from the iSUSI project.

AIMS: Catheter ablation (CA) of ventricular tachycardia (VT) has become an important tool to improve clinical outcomes in patients with appropriate transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks. The aim of our analysis was to test whether VT ablation (VTA) impacts long-term clinical outcomes even in subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) carriers. METHODS AND RESULTS: International Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (iSUSI) registry patients who experienced either an ICD shock or a hospitalization for monomorphic VT were included in this analysis. Based on an eventual VTA after the index event, patients were divided into VTA+ vs. VTA- cohorts. Primary outcome of the study was the occurrence of a combination of device-related appropriate shocks, monomorphic VTs, and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were addressed individually. Among n = 1661 iSUSI patients, n = 211 were included: n = 177 experiencing ICD shocks and n = 34 hospitalized for VT. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed. Both the crude and the yearly event rate of the primary outcome (5/59 and 3.8% yearly event rate VTA+ vs. 41/152 and 16.4% yearly event rate in the VTA-; log-rank: P value = 0.0013) and the cardiovascular mortality (1/59 and 0.7% yearly event rate VTA+ vs. 13/152 and 4.7% yearly event rate VTA-; log-rank P = 0.043) were significantly lower in the VTA + cohort. At multivariate analysis, VTA was the only variable remaining associated with a lower incidence of the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio 0.262 (0.100-0.681), P = 0.006]. CONCLUSION: In a real-world registry of S-ICD carriers, the combined study endpoint of arrhythmic events and cardiovascular mortality was lower in the patient cohort undergoing VTA at long-term follow-up. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT0473876.

Real-world data of patients affected by advanced heart failure treated with implantable cardioverter defibrillator and left ventricular assist device: Results of a multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist device (L-VAD) implantation is increasingly used in patients with heart failure (HF) and most patients also have an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Limited data are available on the incidence of ICD therapies and complications in this special setting. The aim of this study was to analyze the real-world incidence and predictors of ICD therapies, complications and interactions between ICD and L-VAD. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective observational study in patients with advanced HF implanted with ICD and a continuous-flow L-VAD, followed-up in five advanced HF centers in Northern Italy. RESULTS: A total of 234 patients (89.7% male, median age 59, 48.3% with ischemic etiology) were enrolled. After a median follow-up of 21 months, 66 patients (28.2%) experienced an appropriate ICD therapy, 22 patients (9.4%) an inappropriate ICD therapy, and 17 patients (7.3%) suffered from an interaction between ICD and L-VAD. The composite outcome of all ICD-related complications was reported in 41 patients (17.5%), and 121 (51.7%) experienced an L-VAD-related complication. At multivariable analysis, an active ventricular tachycardia (VT) zone and a prior ICD generator replacement were independent predictors of ICD therapies and of total ICD-related complications, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world patients with both L-VAD and ICD experience a high rate of ICD therapies and complications. Our findings suggest the importance of tailoring device programming in order to minimize the incidence of unnecessary ICD therapies, thus sparing the need for ICD generator replacement, a procedure associated to a high risk of complications.

Left ventricular assist device in the presence of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Data from a multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an increasingly used strategy for the management of patients with advanced heart failure (HF). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) might be a viable alternative to conventional ICDs with a lower risk of short- and long-term of device-related complications and infections.The aim of this multicenter study was to evaluate the outcomes and management of S-ICD recipients who underwent LVAD implantation. METHODS: The study population included patients with a preexisting S-ICD who underwent LVAD implantation for advanced HF despite optimal medical therapy. RESULTS: The study population included 30 patients (25 male; median age 45 [38-52] years).The HeartMate III was the most common LVAD type. Median follow-up in the setting of concomitant use of S-ICDs and LVADs was 7 months (1-20).There were no reports of inability to interrogate S-ICD systems in this population. Electromagnetic interference (EMI) occurred in 21 (70%) patients. The primary sensing vector was the one most significantly involved in determining EMI. Twenty-seven patients (90%) remained eligible for S-ICD implantation with at least one optimal sensing vector. The remaining 3 patients (10%) were ineligible for S-ICD after attempts of reprogramming of sensing vectors. Six patients (20%) experienced inappropriate shocks (IS) due to EMI. Six patients (20%) experienced appropriate shocks. No S-ICD extraction because of need for antitachycardia pacing, ineffective therapy or infection was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant use of LVAD and S-ICD is feasible in most patients. However, the potential risk of EMI oversensing, IS and undersensing in the post-operative period following LVAD implantation should be considered. Careful screening for EMI should be performed in all sensing vectors after LVAD implantation.

Differences in underlying cardiac substrate among S-ICD recipients and its impact on long-term device-related outcomes: Real-world insights from the iSUSI registry.

BACKGROUND: Outcome comparisons among subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) recipients with nonischemic cardiomyopathies are scarce. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate differences in device-related outcomes among S-ICD recipients with different structural substrates. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the i-SUSI (International SUbcutaneouS Implantable cardioverter defibrillator registry) project were grouped according to the underlying substrate (ischemic vs nonischemic) and subgrouped into dilated cardiomyopathy, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, Brugada syndrome (BrS), arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC). The main outcome of our study was to compare the rates of appropriate and inappropriate shocks and device-related complications. RESULTS: Among 1698 patients, the most common underlying substrate was ischemic (31.7%), followed by dilated cardiomyopathy (20.5%), BrS (10.8%), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (8.5%), and ARVC (4.4%). S-ICD for primary prevention was more common in the nonischemic cohort (70.9% vs 65.4%; P = .037). Over a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 26.5 (12.6-42.8) months, no differences were observed in appropriate shocks between ischemic and nonischemic patients (4.8%/y vs 3.9%/y; log-rank, P = .282). ARVC (9.0%/y; hazard ratio [HR] 2.492; P = .001) and BrS (1.8%/y; HR 0.396; P = .008) constituted the groups with the highest and lowest rates of appropriate shocks, respectively. Device-related complications did not differ between groups (ischemic: 6.4%/y vs nonischemic: 6.1%/y; log-rank, P = .666), nor among underlying substrates (log-rank, P = .089). Nonischemic patients experienced higher rates of inappropriate shocks than did ischemic S-ICD recipients (4.4%/y vs 3.0%/y; log-rank, P = .043), with patients with ARVC (9.9%/y; P = .001) having the highest risk, even after controlling for confounders (adjusted HR 2.243; confidence interval 1.338-4.267; P = .002). CONCLUSION: Most S-ICD recipients were primary prevention nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients. Among those, patients with ARVC tend to receive the most frequent appropriate and inappropriate shocks and patients with BrS the least frequent appropriate shocks.

Anaesthetic management of paediatric patients undergoing electrophysiology study and ablation for supraventricular tachycardia: A focused narrative review.

Every year, 80,000-100,000 ablation procedures take place in the United States and approximately 1% of these involve paediatric patients. As the paediatric population undergoing catheter ablation to treat dysrhythmia is constantly growing, involvement of anaesthesiologists in the cardiac electrophysiology laboratory is simultaneously increasing. Compared with the adult population, paediatric patients need deeper sedation or general anaesthesia (GA) to guarantee motionlessness and preserve comfort. As a result, the anaesthesiologist working in this setting should keep in mind heart physiopathology as well as possible interactions between anaesthetic drugs and arrhythmia. In fact, drug-induced suppression of accessory pathways (APs) conduction capacity is a major concern for completing a successful electrophysiology study (EPS). Nevertheless, the literature on this topic is scarce and the optimal type of anaesthesia in EPS and ablation procedures in children is still controversial. Thus, the main goal of the present review is to collect the literature published so far on the effects on cardiac conduction tissue of the drugs commonly employed for sedation/GA in the cath lab for EPS and ablation procedures to treat supraventricular tachycardia in patients aged <18 years.