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.

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.

Device-detected atrial sensing amplitudes as a marker of increased risk for new onset and progression of atrial high-rate episodes.

BACKGROUND: Atrial high-rate episodes (AHREs) are frequent in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. A decrease in device-detected P-wave amplitude may be an indicator of periods of increased risk of AHRE. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the association between P-wave amplitude and AHRE incidence. METHODS: Remote monitoring data from 2579 patients with no history of atrial fibrillation (23% pacemakers and 77% implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, of which 40% provided cardiac resynchronization therapy) were used to calculate the mean P-wave amplitude during 1 month after implantation. The association with AHRE incidence according to 4 strata of daily burden duration (≥15 minutes, ≥6 hours, ≥24 hours, ≥7 days) was investigated by adjusting the hazard ratio with the CHA2DS2-VASc score. RESULTS: The adjusted hazard ratio for 1-mV lower mean P-wave amplitude during the first month increased from 1.10 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.15; P < .001) to 1.18 (CI, 1.09-1.28; P < .001) with AHRE duration strata from ≥15 minutes to ≥7 days independent of the CHA2DS2-VASc score. Of 871 patients with AHREs, those with 1-month P-wave amplitude <2.45 mV had an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.51 (CI, 1.19-1.91; P = .001) for progression of AHREs from ≥15 minutes to ≥7 days compared with those with 1-month P-wave amplitude ≥2.45 mV. Device-detected P-wave amplitudes decreased linearly during the 1 year before the first AHRE by 7.3% (CI, 5.1%-9.5%; P < .001 vs patients without AHRE). CONCLUSION: Device-detected P-wave amplitudes <2.45 mV were associated with an increased risk of AHRE onset and progression to persistent forms of AHRE independent of the patient's risk profile.

Leadless pacemakers in patients with different stages of chronic kidney disease: Real-world data from the updated i-LEAPER registry.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on leadless pacemaker (LPM) outcomes according to different stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in the safety and efficacy of LPMs among patients stratified per different stages of renal function. METHODS: Consecutive patients enrolled in the multicenter international i-LEAPER registry (International LEAdless PacemakEr Registry) were analyzed. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to CKD stage. The primary end point was the comparison of LPM-related major complication rate at implantation and during follow-up. Differences in electrical performance were deemed secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 1748 patients enrolled, 33% were in CKD stage G3a/G3b and 9.4% were in CKD stage G4/G5. Patients with CKD presented cardiovascular comorbidities more frequently. During a median follow-up of 39 months (interquartile range [IQR] 18-59 months), major complication rate did not differ between groups (normal kidney function [NKF] group 1.8% vs CKD stage G3a/G3b group 2.9% vs CKD stage G4/G5 group 2.4%; P = .418). All-cause mortality resulted higher in the CKD stage G4/G5 group than in the NKF group (19.5% vs 9.8%; adjusted hazard ratio 1.9; 95% confidence interval 1.25-2.89; P = .003). LPM electrical performance was comparable between groups, except for patients with CKD who showed a slightly higher pacing threshold during 1-month follow-up (NKF group 0.50 V [IQR 0.35-0.70 V] vs G3a/G3b group 0.56 V [IQR 0.38-0.81 V] vs G4/G5 group 0.51 V [0.38-0.84 V] @ 0.24 ms; P < .001). CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting, patients with advanced CKD who underwent LPM implantation were underrepresented. Although all-cause mortality was higher in end-stage CKD, periprocedural complications and LPM performance were overall comparable between NKF and different stages of CKD, except for higher values of pacing threshold in patients with CKD up to first-month follow-up.