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.

Is it safe to give birth with an activated implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: A multicentre observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Data and guidelines are lacking, so implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are often deactivated during labour to prevent inappropriate shocks. This study aimed to ascertain the safety of an activated ICD during labour. DESIGN: An observational study was performed. SETTING: Dutch hospitals. POPULATION OR SAMPLE: A total of 41 childbirths were included of 26 patients who gave birth between February 2009 and November 2018 after receiving an ICD in our tertiary hospital. Five of these childbirths were attended by the research team between December 2018 and August 2020, during which the ICD remained active. METHODS: Groups were made based on ICD status during labour. Patients who gave birth with an activated ICD at least once were stratified to the activated ICD group. Patients' files were checked and patients received a questionnaire about childbirth perceptions and treatment preferences. The differences in ordinal data resulting from the questionnaire were calculated using a chi-square or Fisher's exact test. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was inappropriate ICD therapy and occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias requiring treatment. RESULTS: During the 41 childbirths, no inappropriate shocks or ventricular arrhythmias occurred during labour. All patients in the activated ICD group (n = 13) preferred this setting, while 8 of the 13 patients in the deactivated ICD group preferred activation (p = 0.002). Reasons included avoiding hemodynamic monitoring, magnet placement, or labour induction to facilitate technician availability. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows no evidence that labour and birth in women with an activated ICD are unsafe, as there were no ventricular arrhythmias or inappropriate therapy. In addition, most patients prefer an activated ICD during labour.

Successful defibrillation testing in patients undergoing elective subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator generator replacement.

AIMS: After implantation of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD), a defibrillation test (DFT) is performed to ensure that the device can effectively detect and terminate the induced ventricular arrhythmia. Data on DFT efficacy at generator replacement are scarce with a limited number of patients and conflicting results. This study evaluates conversion efficacy during DFT at elective S-ICD generator replacement in a large cohort from our tertiary centre. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective data of patients who underwent an S-ICD generator replacement for battery depletion with subsequent DFT between February 2015 and June 2022 were collected. Defibrillation test data were collected from both implant and replacement procedures. PRAETORIAN scores at implant were calculated. Defibrillation test was defined unsuccessful when two conversions at 65 J failed. A total of 121 patients were included. The defibrillation test was successful in 95% after the first and 98% after two consecutive tests. This was comparable with success rates at implant, despite a significant rise in shock impedance (73 ± 23 vs. 83 ± 24 Ω, P < 0.001). Both patients with an unsuccessful DFT at 65 J successfully converted with 80 J. CONCLUSION: This study shows a high DFT conversion rate at elective S-ICD generator replacement, which is comparable to conversion rates at implant, despite a rise in shock impedance. Evaluating device position before generator replacement may be recommended to optimize defibrillation success at generator replacement.

Device-related complications in subcutaneous versus transvenous ICD: a secondary analysis of the PRAETORIAN trial.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is developed to overcome lead-related complications and systemic infections, inherent to transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) therapy. The PRAETORIAN trial demonstrated that the S-ICD is non-inferior to the TV-ICD with regard to the combined primary endpoint of inappropriate shocks and complications. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates all complications in the PRAETORIAN trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PRAETORIAN trial is an international, multicentre, randomized trial in which 849 patients with an indication for ICD therapy were randomized to receive an S- ICD (N = 426) or TV-ICD (N = 423) and followed for a median of 49 months. Endpoints were device-related complications, lead-related complications, systemic infections, and the need for invasive interventions. Thirty-six device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the S-ICD group of which bleedings were the most frequent. In the TV-ICD group, 49 complications occurred in 44 patients of which lead dysfunction was most frequent (HR: 0.69; P = 0.11). In both groups, half of all complications were within 30 days after implantation. Lead-related complications and systemic infections occurred significantly less in the S-ICD group compared with the TV-ICD group (P < 0.001, P = 0.03, respectively). Significantly more complications required invasive interventions in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group (8.3% vs. 4.3%, HR: 0.59; P = 0.047). CONCLUSION: This secondary analysis shows that lead-related complications and systemic infections are more prevalent in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group. In addition, complications in the TV-ICD group were more severe as they required significantly more invasive interventions. This data contributes to shared decision-making in clinical practice.