Device programing and SMART pass algorithm activation in subcutaneous implantable defibrillator patients: Data from a remote monitoring database.

BACKGROUND: The programing of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICD) in clinical practice has been little studied, as the activation status of the SMART Pass filter, which was implemented to reduce inappropriate shocks. PURPOSE: We assessed device programing during follow-up and the rate of detected arrhythmias in consecutive S-ICD recipients. METHODS: We analyzed data from 670 S-ICD patients followed on the remote network at 17 Italian centers for a median of 31 months (25th-75th percentile: 16-51). The enhanced SMART Pass version, introduced in October 2022, was expected to reduce the unintentional deactivation rate. RESULTS: At the latest remote data transmission, the median conditional zone cut-off was set to 210 bpm (25th-75th percentile: 200-220), the shock zone cutoff was 250 bpm (25th-75th percentile: 240-250), and the SMART Pass was enabled in 586 (87%) patients. During follow-up, 194 automatic deactivation events were reported in 118 (18%) patients. Shocks were delivered in 129 (19%) patients, and untreated arrhythmias were recorded in 136 (20%) patients. The rate of shocks was lower when SMART Pass was enabled -0.12/patient-year (95% CI: 0.10-0.14) versus 0.20 (95% CI: 0.15-0.26) (p = .002), as it was the rate of untreated arrhythmias -0.12/patient-year (95% CI: 0.11-0.14) versus 0.23 (95% CI: 0.18-0.30) (p = .001). The enhanced SMART Pass version was associated with a lower rate of deactivations -0.04/patient-year (95% CI: 0.02-0.05) versus 0.14 (95% CI: 0.12-0.16) (p < .001), and with a reduction in treated and untreated arrhythmias (Incidence rate ratios: 0.40 (95% CI: 0.28-0.53) and 0.40 (95% CI: 0.30-0.55), respectively (p < .001)). CONCLUSIONS: Centers tend to program devices to detect high ventricular rates for arrhythmia detection, to minimize inappropriate shock occurrences. SMART Pass activation is associated with lower rates of detected and treated arrhythmias. The enhanced SMART Pass version seems associated with a lower deactivation rate and with a further decrease in treated arrhythmias.

Implantable defibrillator-detected heart failure status predicts ventricular tachyarrhythmias.

INTRODUCTION: The prediction of ventricular tachyarrhythmias among patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators is difficult with available clinical tools. We sought to assess whether in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction with defibrillators, physiological sensor-based HF status, as summarized by the HeartLogic index, could predict appropriate device therapies. METHODS: Five hundred and sixty-eight consecutive HF patients with defibrillators (n = 158, 28%) or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators (n = 410, 72%) were included in this prospective observational multicenter analysis. The association of both HeartLogic index and its physiological components with defibrillator shocks and overall appropriate therapies was assessed in regression and time-dependent Cox models. RESULTS: Over a follow-up of 25 (15-35) months, 122 (21%) patients received an appropriate device therapy (shock, n = 74, 13%), while the HeartLogic index crossed the threshold value (alert, HeartLogic ≥ 16) 1200 times (0.71 alerts/patient-year) in 370 (65%) subjects. The occurrence of ≥1 HeartLogic alert was significantly associated with both appropriate shocks (Hazard ratios [HR]: 2.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.49-3.97, p = .003), and any appropriate defibrillator therapies. In multivariable time-dependent Cox models, weekly IN-alert state was the strongest predictor of appropriate defibrillator shocks (HR: 2.94, 95% CI: 1.73-5.01, p < .001) and overall therapies. Compared with stable patients, patients with appropriate shocks had significantly higher values of HeartLogic index, third heart sound amplitude, and resting heart rate 30-60 days before device therapy. CONCLUSION: The HeartLogic index is an independent dynamic predictor of appropriate defibrillator therapies. The combined index and its individual physiological components change before the arrhythmic event occurs.

Combination of an implantable defibrillator multi-sensor heart failure index and an apnea index for the prediction of atrial high-rate events.

AIMS: Patients with atrial fibrillation frequently experience sleep disorder breathing, and both conditions are highly prevalent in presence of heart failure (HF). We explored the association between the combination of an HF and a sleep apnoea (SA) index and the incidence of atrial high-rate events (AHRE) in patients with implantable defibrillators (ICDs). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were prospectively collected from 411 consecutive HF patients with ICD. The IN-alert HF state was measured by the multi-sensor HeartLogic Index (>16), and the ICD-measured Respiratory Disturbance Index (RDI) was computed to identify severe SA. The endpoints were as follows: daily AHRE burden of ≥5 min, ≥6 h, and ≥23 h. During a median follow-up of 26 months, the time IN-alert HF state was 13% of the total observation period. The RDI value was ≥30 episodes/h (severe SA) during 58% of the observation period. An AHRE burden of ≥5 min/day was documented in 139 (34%) patients, ≥6 h/day in 89 (22%) patients, and ≥23 h/day in 68 (17%) patients. The IN-alert HF state was independently associated with AHRE regardless of the daily burden threshold: hazard ratios from 2.17 for ≥5 min/day to 3.43 for ≥23 h/day (P < 0.01). An RDI ≥ 30 episodes/h was associated only with AHRE burden ≥5 min/day [hazard ratio 1.55 (95% confidence interval: 1.11-2.16), P = 0.001]. The combination of IN-alert HF state and RDI ≥ 30 episodes/h accounted for only 6% of the follow-up period and was associated with high rates of AHRE occurrence (from 28 events/100 patient-years for AHRE burden ≥5 min/day to 22 events/100 patient-years for AHRE burden ≥23 h/day). CONCLUSIONS: In HF patients, the occurrence of AHRE is independently associated with the ICD-measured IN-alert HF state and RDI ≥ 30 episodes/h. The coexistence of these two conditions occurs rarely but is associated with a very high rate of AHRE occurrence. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/Identifier: NCT02275637.

Reduction in inappropriate therapies through device programming in subcutaneous implantable defibrillator patients: data from clinical practice.

AIMS: In subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) recipients, the UNTOUCHED study demonstrated a very low inappropriate shock rate on programming a conditional zone between 200 and 250 bpm and a shock zone for arrhythmias >250 bpm. The extent to which this programming approach is adopted in clinical practice is still unknown, as is its impact on the rates of inappropriate and appropriate therapies. METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed ICD programming on implantation and during follow-up in a cohort of 1468 consecutive S-ICD recipients in 56 Italian centres. We also measured the occurrence of inappropriate and appropriate shocks during follow-up. On implantation, the median programmed conditional zone cut-off was set to 200 bpm (IQR: 200-220) and the shock zone cut-off was 230 bpm (IQR: 210-250). During follow-up, the conditional zone cut-off rate was not significantly changed, while the shock zone cut-off was changed in 622 (42%) patients and the median value increased to 250 bpm (IQR: 230-250) (P < 0.001). UNTOUCHED-like programming of detection cut-offs was adopted in 426 (29%) patients immediately after device implantation, and in 714 (49%, P < 0.001) at the last follow-up. UNTOUCHED-like programming was independently associated with fewer inappropriate shocks (hazard ratio 0.50, 95%CI 0.25-0.98, P = 0.044), and had no impact on appropriate and ineffective shocks. CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, S-ICD implanting centres have increasingly programmed high arrhythmia detection cut-off rates, at the time of implantation in the case of new S-ICD recipients, and during follow-up in the case of pre-existing implants. This has contributed significantly to reducing the incidence of inappropriate shocks in clinical practice. Rordorf: Programming of the S-ICD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/Identifier: NCT02275637.

Intermuscular technique for implantation of the subcutaneous implantable defibrillator: a propensity-matched case-control study.

AIMS: A previous randomized study demonstrated that the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) was noninferior to transvenous ICD with respect to device-related complications and inappropriate shocks. However, that was performed prior to the widespread adoption of pulse generator implantation in the intermuscular (IM) space instead of the traditional subcutaneous (SC) pocket. The aim of this analysis was to compare survival from device-related complications and inappropriate shocks between patients who underwent S-ICD implantation with the generator positioned in an IM position in comparison with an SC pocket. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed 1577 consecutive patients who had undergone S-ICD implantation from 2013 to 2021 and were followed up until December 2021. Subcutaneous patients (n = 290) were propensity matched with patients of the IM group (n = 290), and their outcomes were compared. : During a median follow-up of 28 months, device-related complications were reported in 28 (4.8%) patients and inappropriate shocks were reported in 37 (6.4%) patients. The risk of complication was lower in the matched IM group than in the SC group [hazard ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.99, P = 0.041], as well as the composite of complications and inappropriate shocks (hazard ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.30-0.86, P = 0.013). The risk of appropriate shocks was similar between groups (hazard ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.50-1.61, P = 0.721). There was no significant interaction between generator positioning and variables such as gender, age, body mass index, and ejection fraction. CONCLUSION: Our data showed the superiority of the IM S-ICD generator positioning in reducing device-related complications and inappropriate shocks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT02275637.

Procedure, management, and outcome of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator extraction in clinical practice.

AIMS: Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) therapy is expanding rapidly. However, there are few data on the S-ICD extraction procedure and subsequent patient management. The aim of this analysis was to describe the procedure, management, and outcome of S-ICD extractions in clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled consecutive patients who required complete S-ICD extraction at 66 Italian centres. From 2013 to 2022, 2718 patients undergoing de novo implantation of an S-ICD were enrolled. Of these, 71 required complete S-ICD system extraction (17 owing to infection). The S-ICD system was successfully extracted in all patients, and no complications were reported; the median procedure duration was 40 (25th-75th percentile: 20-55) min. Simple manual traction was sufficient to remove the lead in 59 (84%) patients, in whom lead-dwelling time was shorter [20 (9-32) months vs. 30 (22-41) months; P = 0.032]. Hospitalization time was short in the case of both non-infectious [2 (1-2) days] and infectious indications [3 (1-6) days]. In the case of infection, no patients required post-extraction intravenous antibiotics, the median duration of any antibiotic therapy was 10 (10-14) days, and the re-implantation was performed during the same procedure in 29% of cases. No complications arose over a median of 21 months. CONCLUSION: The S-ICD extraction was safe and easy to perform, with no complications. Simple traction of the lead was successful in most patients, but specific tools could be needed for systems implanted for a longer time. The peri- and post-procedural management of S-ICD extraction was free from complications and not burdensome for patients and healthcare system. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/Identifier: NCT02275637.

Performance of a multi-sensor implantable defibrillator algorithm for heart failure monitoring in the presence of atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: The HeartLogic Index combines data from multiple implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) sensors and has been shown to accurately stratify patients at risk of heart failure (HF) events. We evaluated and compared the performance of this algorithm during sinus rhythm and during long-lasting atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: HeartLogic was activated in 568 ICD patients from 26 centres. We found periods of ≥30 consecutive days with an atrial high-rate episode (AHRE) burden <1 h/day and periods with an AHRE burden ≥20 h/day. We then identified patients who met both criteria during the follow-up (AHRE group, n = 53), to allow pairwise comparison of periods. For control purposes, we identified patients with an AHRE burden <1 h throughout their follow-up and implemented 2:1 propensity score matching vs. the AHRE group (matched non-AHRE group, n = 106). In the AHRE group, the rate of alerts was 1.2 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.0-1.5]/patient-year during periods with an AHRE burden <1 h/day and 2.0 (95% CI: 1.5-2.6)/patient-year during periods with an AHRE-burden ≥20 h/day (P = 0.004). The rate of HF hospitalizations was 0.34 (95% CI: 0.15-0.69)/patient-year during IN-alert periods and 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02-0.14)/patient-year during OUT-of-alert periods (P < 0.001). The IN/OUT-of-alert state incidence rate ratio of HF hospitalizations was 8.59 (95% CI: 1.67-55.31) during periods with an AHRE burden <1 h/day and 2.70 (95% CI: 1.01-28.33) during periods with an AHRE burden ≥20 h/day. In the matched non-AHRE group, the rate of HF hospitalizations was 0.29 (95% CI: 0.12-0.60)/patient-year during IN-alert periods and 0.04 (95% CI: 0.02-0.08)/patient-year during OUT-of-alert periods (P < 0.001). The incidence rate ratio was 7.11 (95% CI: 2.19-22.44). CONCLUSION: Patients received more alerts during periods of AF. The ability of the algorithm to identify increased risk of HF events was confirmed during AF, despite a lower IN/OUT-of-alert incidence rate ratio in comparison with non-AF periods and non-AF patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov/Identifier: NCT02275637.

Modern subcutaneous implantable defibrillator therapy in patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies: data from a large multicentre registry.

AIMS: Patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies are usually younger and have a predominantly arrhythmia-related prognosis; they have nearly normal life expectancy thanks to the protection against sudden cardiac death provided by the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to the transvenous ICD and has evolved over the years. This study aimed to evaluate the rate of inappropriate shocks (IS), appropriate therapies, and device-related complications in patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies who underwent modern S-ICD implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled consecutive patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies who had undergone implantation of a modern S-ICD from January 2016 to December 2020 and who were followed up until December 2022. A total of 1338 S-ICD implantations were performed within the observation period. Of these patients, 628 had cardiomyopathies or channelopathies. The rate of IS at 12 months was 4.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.8-6.9] in patients with cardiomyopathies and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.1-3.8) in patients with channelopathies (P = 0.032). No significant differences were noted over a median follow-up of 43 months [hazard ratio (HR): 0.76; 95% CI: 0.45-1.31; P = 0.351]. The rate of appropriate shocks at 12 months was 2.3% (95% CI: 1.1-4.1) in patients with cardiomyopathies and 2.1% (95% CI: 0.6-5.3) in patients with channelopathies (P = 1.0). The rate of device-related complications was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.3-2.3) and 3.2% (95% CI: 1.2-6.8), respectively (P = 0.074). No significant differences were noted over the entire follow-up. The need for pacing was low, occurring in 0.8% of patients. CONCLUSION: Modern S-ICDs may be a valuable alternative to transvenous ICDs in patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies. Our findings suggest that modern S-ICD therapy carries a low rate of IS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/Identifier: NCT02275637.

Patient acceptance of subcutaneous versus transvenous defibrillator systems: A multi-center experience.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to the transvenous ICD. No study has yet compared S-ICD and transvenous ICD by assessing patient acceptance as a patient-centered outcome. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the patient acceptance of the S-ICD and to investigate its association with clinical and implantation variables. In patients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the acceptance of the S-ICD was compared with a control group of patients who received a transvenous ICD. METHODS: Patient acceptance was calculated with the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS) which measures four factors: return to function (RTF), device-related distress (DRD), positive appraisal (PA), and body image concerns (BIC). The survey was administered 12 months after implantation. RESULTS: 176 patients underwent S-ICD implantation. The total FPAS and the single factors did not differ according to gender, body habitus, or generator positioning. Patients with HFrEF had lower FPAS and RTF. Younger patients showed better RTF (75 [56-94] vs. 56 [50-81], p = .029). Patients who experienced device complications or device therapies showed higher DRD (40 [35-60] vs. 25 [10-50], p = .019). Patients with HFrEF receiving the S-ICD had comparable FPAS, RTF, DRD, and BIC to HFrEF patients implanted with the transvenous ICD while exhibited significantly better PA (88 [75-100] vs. 81 [63-94], p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis revealed positive patient acceptance of the S-ICD, even in groups at risk of more distress such as women or patients with thinner body habitus, and regardless of the generator positioning. Among patients receiving ICDs for HFrEF, S-ICD was associated with better PA versus transvenous ICD.

Acute shock efficacy of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator according to the implantation technique.

BACKGROUND: The traditional technique for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation involves three incisions and a subcutaneous (SC) pocket. An intermuscular (IM) 2-incision technique has been recently adopted. AIMS: We assessed acute defibrillation efficacy (DE) of S-ICD (DE ≤65 J) according to the implantation technique. METHODS: We analyzed consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD implantation and DE testing at 53 Italian centers. Regression analysis was used to determine the association between DFT and implantation technique. RESULTS: A total of 805 patients were enrolled. Four groups were assessed: IM + 2 incisions (n = 546), SC + 2 incisions (n = 133), SC + 3 incisions (n = 111), and IM + 3 incisions (n = 15). DE was ≤65 J in 782 (97.1%) patients. Patients with DE ≤65 J showed a trend towards lower body mass index (25.1 vs. 26.5; p = .12), were less frequently on antiarrhythmic drugs (13% vs. 26%; p = .06) and more commonly underwent implantation with the 2-incision technique (85% vs. 70%; p = .04). The IM + 2-incision technique showed the lowest defibrillation failure rate (2.2%) and shock impedance (66 Ohm, interquartile range: 57-77). On multivariate analysis, the 2-incision technique was associated with a lower incidence of shock failure (hazard ratio: 0.305; 95% confidence interval: 0.102-0.907; p = .033). Shock impedance was lower with the IM than with the SC approach (66 vs. 70 Ohm p = .002) and with the 2-incision than the 3-incision technique (67 vs. 72 Ohm; p = .006). CONCLUSIONS: In a large population of S-ICD patients, we observed a high defibrillation success rate. The IM + 2-incision technique provides lower shock impedance and a higher likelihood of successful defibrillation.

Home delivery of the communicator for remote monitoring of cardiac implantable devices: A multicenter experience during the covid-19 lockdown.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic in-person visits for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices should be replaced by remote monitoring (RM), in order to prevent viral transmission. A direct home-delivery service of the RM communicator has been implemented at 49 Italian arrhythmia centers. METHODS: According to individual patient preference or the organizational decision of the center, patients were assigned to the home-delivery group or the standard in-clinic delivery group. In the former case, patients received telephone training on the activation process and use of the communicator. In June 2020, the centers were asked to reply to an ad hoc questionnaire to describe and evaluate their experience in the previous 3 months. RESULTS: RM was activated in 1324 patients: 821 (62%) received the communicator at home and the communicator was activated remotely. Activation required one additional call in 49% of cases, and the median time needed to complete the activation process was 15 min [25th-75th percentile: 10-20]. 753 (92%) patients were able to complete the correct activation of the system. At the time when the questionnaire was completed, 743 (90%) communicators were regularly transmitting data. The service was generally deemed useful (96% of respondents) in facilitating the activation of RM during the COVID-19 pandemic and possibly beyond. CONCLUSIONS: Home delivery of the communicator proved to be a successful approach to system activation, and received positive feedback from clinicians. The increased use of a RM protocol will reduce risks for both providers and patients, while maintaining high-quality care.

Serratus anterior plane block in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation: A case-control analysis.

BACKGROUND: A two-incision technique, in association with inter-muscular positioning of the subcutaneous defibrillator (S-ICD), is now the most frequently adopted implantation approach in Europe. Ultrasound-guided serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) has been proposed to provide anesthesia/analgesia during S-ICD implantation. OBJECTIVE: We performed a case-control analysis in which a standardized SAPB approach was compared with the typical local anesthesia and sedation approach. METHODS: Ninety-one consecutive patients underwent implantation of an S-ICD with the SAPB approach for anesthesia/analgesia at 10 centers. The control group consisted of 55 consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD implantation with a standard local approach. RESULTS: The mean procedure duration was 59 ± 15 minutes in the SAPB group and 76 ± 23 minutes in the control group (P < .001). No operative complications were reported in either group. During the procedure, 79 (87%) patients in the SAPB group and 25 (46%) patients in the control group (P < .001) remained awake. Lower values of pain intensity at the device pocket (P = .005) and the lateral tunneling site (P = .046) were reported in the SAPB group. The difference in static (P = .002) and dynamic (P = .007) pain intensity between the groups persisted at 1 hour, while no differences were observed 6 hours after the end of the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: SAPB is feasible and effective in providing anesthesia/analgesia during S-ICD implantation. The procedures were successfully accomplished and no complications occurred in either group. However, SAPB was associated with lower pain levels, enabling the need for sedation to be reduced and more patients to remain awake. Moreover, it resulted in shorter procedure durations.

A randomized controlled trial of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with prolonged atrioventricular interval: the REAL-CRT pilot study.

AIMS: A prolonged PR interval is known to be associated with increased mortality and a higher risk of developing atrial fibrillation (AF). We tested the hypothesis that cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is superior to conventional dual-chamber pacing with algorithms for right ventricular pacing avoidance (DDD-VPA) in preserving systolic and diastolic function and in preventing new-onset AF in patients with normal systolic function, indication for pacing and prolonged atrioventricular conduction (PR interval ≥220 ms). METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned 82 patients with ejection fraction >35%, indication for pacing and PR interval ≥220 ms to CRT or to DDD-VPA. On 12-month follow-up examination, the study and control arms did not differ in terms of left ventricular end-systolic volume (44 ± 17 mL vs. 47 ± 16 mL, P = 0.511) or ejection fraction (55 ± 6% vs. 57 ± 8%, P = 0.291). The E to A mitral wave amplitude ratio was higher in the CRT arm (1.3 ± 1.3 vs. 0.8 ± 0.4, P = 0.046) and the E wave deceleration time was longer (262 ± 83 ms vs. 205 ± 51 ms, P = 0.027). Left atrial volume was smaller in the CRT arm (64 ± 17 mL vs. 84 ± 25 mL, P = 0.035). Moreover, the functional class was lower in CRT patients (1.4 ± 0.6 vs. 1.8 ± 0.5, P = 0.010). During follow-up, CRT was associated with a lower risk of new-onset AF [hazard ratio = 0.37 (0.13-0.98), P = 0.046]. CONCLUSION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy proved superior to DDD-VPA in terms of better diastolic function, less left atrial enlargement and lower risk of new-onset AF, at 12 months. These data need to be confirmed in a larger trial with longer follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ Identifier: NCT02150538.

Implantation technique and optimal subcutaneous defibrillator chest position: a PRAETORIAN score-based study.

AIMS: The traditional technique for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation involves three incisions and a subcutaneous pocket. Recently, a two-incision and intermuscular (IM) technique has been adopted. The PRAETORIAN score is a chest radiograph-based tool that predicts S-ICD conversion testing. We assessed whether the S-ICD implantation technique affects optimal position of the defibrillation system according to the PRAETORIAN score. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed consecutive patients undergoing S-ICD implantation. The χ2 test and regression analysis were used to determine the association between the PRAETORIAN score and implantation technique. Two hundred and thirteen patients were enrolled. The S-ICD generator was positioned in an IM pocket in 174 patients (81.7%) and the two-incision approach was adopted in 199 (93.4%). According to the PRAETORIAN score, the risk of conversion failure was classified as low in 198 patients (93.0%), intermediate in 13 (6.1%), and high in 2 (0.9%). Patients undergoing the two-incision and IM technique were more likely to have a low (<90) PRAETORIAN score than those undergoing the three-incision and subcutaneous technique (two-incision: 94.0% vs. three-incision: 78.6%; P = 0.004 and IM: 96.0% vs. subcutaneous: 79.5%; P = 0.001). Intermuscular plus two-incision technique was associated with a low-risk PRAETORIAN score (hazard ratio 3.76; 95% confidence interval 1.01-14.02; P = 0.04). Shock impedance was lower in PRAETORIAN low-risk patients than in intermediate-/high-risk categories (66 vs. 96 Ohm; P = 0.001). The PRAETORIAN score did not predict shock failure at 65 J. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of S-ICD recipients, combining the two-incision technique and IM generator implantation yielded the lowest PRAETORIAN score values, indicating optimal defibrillation system position. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ Identifier: NCT02275637.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: is it ready for use in children and young adults? A single-centre study.

Aims: Use of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) to prevent sudden cardiac death is increasing. Few data exist on S-ICD in young patients. We reviewed our single-centre experience in order to assess the effectiveness and safety of S-ICD implantation, and to identify potential factors associated with complications. Methods and results: Observational, non-randomized, standard-of-care study on S-ICD implantation/follow-up in young patients with inherited arrhythmias (IA), cardiomyopathies, and congenital heart defects (CHD). Fifteen patients (6 CHD, 8 cardiomyopathies, and 1 IA), median age 15 years (25th-75th centiles, 14-28), 10 of them <18 years, with body mass index (BMI) 22.6 ± 3.4, underwent S-ICD implantation (primary prevention 93%). The first six patients underwent a standard implantation procedure (three surgical incisions), the following nine a two-incision procedure. No intraoperative complications occurred. Over 12 (7-24) months follow-up, two patients received appropriate shocks and one (7%) inappropriate shock. Four patients had device-related complications requiring surgical intervention: three skin erosions at the superior parasternal incision, one pocket infection. A higher risk of complications was seen in patients who underwent standard procedures [hazard ratio (HR) 4.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.53-47.36; P = 0.0482] and those with BMI <20 (HR 9.44, 95% CI 0.95-93.23; P = 0.0169). Conclusion: S-ICD implantation was safe and effective in young patients with low rates of inappropriate shock. However, the risk of device-related complications during follow-up remains substantial in patients with low BMI. To prevent possible complications, a two-incision technique should be preferred.

Pacemaker-detected severe sleep apnea predicts new-onset atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Sleep apnea (SA) diagnosed on overnight polysomnography is a risk factor for atrial fibrillation (AF). Advanced pacemakers are now able to monitor intrathoracic impedance for automatic detection of SA events. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled 160 consecutive recipients of a dual-chamber pacemaker endowed with the ApneaScan algorithm (Boston Scientific). If the pacemaker-measured Respiratory Disturbance Index was ≥30 episodes per hour for at least one night during the first week after implantation, SA was defined as severe. Patients were considered to have experienced AF episodes if the device detected a cumulative AF burden ≥6 h in a day. Sixteen patients in AF at the time of implantation were excluded from our analysis. During follow-up, AF burden ≥6 h/day was documented in 35 (24%) of the patients included in the analysis and in 12 (13%) of the 96 patients with no history of AF. Severe SA was detected in 89 patients during the first week after implantation; 58 of these had no history of AF. Severe SA at the baseline was associated with a higher risk of AF both in the whole population (log-rank test, hazard ratio: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.21-4.66; P = 0.025) and among patients with no previous history of AF (log-rank test, hazard ratio: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.10-7.10; P = 0.047). Moreover, severe SA at the time of follow-up device interrogation predicted AF occurrence within the next 3 months (log-rank test, hazard ration: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.11-4.08; P = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: In pacemaker patients, device-diagnosed severe SA was independently associated with a higher risk of AF (≥6 h/day) and new-onset AF. In particular, severe SA on follow-up data review identified patients who were ∼2-fold more likely to experience an AF episode in the next 3 months.

The Italian subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator survey: S-ICD, why not?

AIMS: A recommendation for a subcutaneous-implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has been added to recent European Society of Cardiology Guidelines. However, the S-ICD is not ideally suitable for patients who need pacing. The aim of this survey was to analyse the current practice of ICD implantation and to evaluate the actual suitability of S-ICD. METHODS AND RESULTS: The survey 'S-ICD Why Not?' was an independent initiative taken by the Italian Heart Rhythm Society (AIAC). Clinical characteristics, selection criteria, and factors guiding the choice of ICD type were collected in consecutive patients who underwent ICD implantation in 33 Italian centres from September to December 2015. A cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device was implanted in 39% (369 of 947) of patients undergoing de novo ICD implantation. An S-ICD was implanted in 12% of patients with no CRT indication (62 of 510 with available data). S-ICD patients were younger than patients who received transvenous ICD, more often had channelopathies, and more frequently received their device for secondary prevention of sudden death. More frequently, the clinical reason for preferring a transvenous ICD over an S-ICD was the need for pacing (45%) or for antitachycardia pacing (36%). Nonetheless, only 7% of patients fulfilled conditions for recommending permanent pacing, and 4% of patients had a history of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia that might have been treatable with antitachycardia pacing. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of patients needing ICD therapy are suitable candidates for S-ICD implantation. Nevertheless, it currently seems to be preferentially adopted for secondary prevention of sudden death in young patients with channelopathies.

Persistence of ICD indication at the time of replacement in patients with initial implant for primary prevention indication: Effect on subsequent ICD therapies.

BACKGROUND: Indication to implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden death relies on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We measured the proportion of patients in whom indication to ICD persisted at the time of generator replacement (GR) and searched for predictors of appropriate therapies after GR. METHODS: We identified all consecutive patients who had received an ICD at our hospital, for LVEF ≤35% and no previous arrhythmias or unexplained syncope. Then, we included the 166 patients who outlived their first device and underwent GR. RESULTS: At the time of GR (mean follow-up 59 ± 20 months), ICD indication (i.e. LVEF ≤35% or previously treated ventricular arrhythmias) persisted in 114 (69%) patients. After GR, appropriate ICD therapies were delivered in 30 (26%) patients with persistent ICD indication and in 12 (23%) of the remaining patients (p = 0.656). Nonetheless, the annual rate of therapies was higher in the first group (1.08 versus 0.53 events/year; p < 0.001), as well as the rate of inappropriate therapies (0.03 versus 0 events/year; p = 0.031). The only independent predictor of appropriate ICD therapies after GR was the rate of shocks received before replacement (Hazard Ratio: 1.41; 95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.96; p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: In heart failure with reduced LVEF, ICD indication persisted at the time of GR in 69% of patients. However, even in the absence of persistent ICD indication at GR, the risk of recurrence of arrhythmic events was not null.

Reduced long-term overall mortality in heart failure patients with prolonged QRS treated with CRT combined with ICD vs. heart failure patients with narrow QRS treated with ICD only.

AIMS: It is not known whether heart failure (HF) patients with prolonged QRS who undergo cardiac resynchronization therapy combined with a defibrillator (CRT-D) have a prognostic advantage over HF patients with narrow QRS (therefore without indication for CRT) treated with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) only. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term mortality of a group of HF patients with prolonged QRS receiving CRT-D with that of a similar group of patients with narrow QRS receiving ICD only. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 312 patients (mean age 66 ± 13 years; 84% male, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 25 ± 4%, mean New York Heart Association class 2.6 ± 0.5) were included in the analysis. Of these, 138 with a QRS complex duration ≥120 ms received a CRT-D. During follow-up, the time and cause of death were assessed. During a median follow-up of 46 months, CRT-D patients showed significantly lower overall mortality (P = 0.038). Compared with patients receiving ICD only, CRT-D patients showed lower HF mortality (P = 0.003). Coronary mortality, non-cardiac mortality, and sudden mortality were similar in both groups (all P > 0.05). A positive response to CRT was an independent predictor of reduced mortality on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio: 0.27; P = 0.047). CONCLUSION: In HF patients treated with ICD, the subgroup of patients with prolonged QRS who receive CRT-D displays better long-term survival than narrow QRS ICD recipients, owing to their reduced HF mortality.

Battery drain in daily practice and medium-term projections on longevity of cardioverter-defibrillators: an analysis from a remote monitoring database.

AIMS: The longevity of generators is a crucial determinant of the cost-effectiveness of therapy with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-D). We evaluated the trend of device-measured residual battery capacity and longevity projections over 5-year follow-up. We also investigated possible factors associated with battery drain. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 4851 patients in the European LATITUDE(®) database who were followed up for a minimum of 3 years were analysed. The factors associated with battery drain (i.e. year-to-year decrease in residual battery capacity), and thus potentially impacting on device longevity, were mainly the pacing parameters in CRT-D devices and the number of shocks delivered and diverted in both ICD and CRT-D (all P < 0.01 on linear regression analysis). Over the first 5 years, the longevity estimates provided by devices showed low intra-patient variability and increased with time. The estimates exceeded 10 years for CRT-D and 13 and 12 years for single- and dual-chamber ICDs, respectively. In CRT-D patients, the expected patient age on replacement was 80 ± 12 years, and the expected probability of undergoing device replacement was 63 ± 13% for New York Heart Association (NYHA) II patients and 37 ± 16% for NYHA III patients. For comparison, the probabilities of replacing a CRT-D lasting 5 years were 78 ± 8 and 59 ± 13%, respectively (both P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Battery drain was mainly associated with pacing output in CRT-D devices and with the number of capacitor charges in both ICD and CRT-D devices. The longevity estimates provided by the devices were consistent and conservative. According to these estimates, among CRT-D recipients a low proportion of patients should require device replacement.