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.

The use of a wearable cardioverter defibrillator during postmastectomy radiotherapy as an alternative for relocation of the pulse generator.

Purpose: We describe a case in which a breast cancer patient with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was treated with postmastectomy followed by axillary radiation therapy. The ICD was partly within the target volume and according to the treatment planning system would receive a maximum dose of about 36 Gy. Methods and Materials: Postoperatively, the patient had a wound infection needing surgical intervention and 3 months of antibiotics. Therefore, it was decided not to relocate the ICD but instead to switch off the shock function of the ICD for the entire radiation therapy course. Results: The ICD was successfully substituted with a wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD), which the patient wore during the 3-week radiation therapy period until 2 weeks after the end of treatment. The ICD function was monitored from the start of the treatment until 6 months after treatment. Conclusions: In situations in which an ICD needs to be switched off semipermanently, a WCD can be used as alternative. The patient in this report tolerated the WCD well. Despite the high dose received by the ICD, the device and its battery continued to function normally.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Appropriate Shocks and Antitachycardia Pacing in Transvenous and Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillators: Analysis of All Appropriate Therapy in the PRAETORIAN Trial.

BACKGROUND: The PRAETORIAN trial (A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Subcutaneous and Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy) showed noninferiority of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) compared with transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) with regard to inappropriate shocks and complications. In contrast to TV-ICD, S-ICD cannot provide antitachycardia pacing for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates appropriate therapy and whether antitachycardia pacing reduces the number of appropriate shocks. METHODS: The PRAETORIAN trial was an international, investigator-initiated randomized trial that included patients with an indication for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Patients with previous ventricular tachycardia <170 bpm or refractory recurrent monomorphic ventricular tachycardia were excluded. In 39 centers, 849 patients were randomized to receive an S-ICD (n=426) or TV-ICD (n=423) and were followed for a median of 49.1 months. ICD programming was mandated by protocol. Appropriate ICD therapy was defined as therapy for ventricular arrhythmias. Arrhythmias were classified as discrete episodes and storm episodes (≥3 episodes within 24 hours). Analyses were performed in the modified intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: In the S-ICD group, 86 of 426 patients received appropriate therapy, versus 78 of 423 patients in the TV-ICD group, during a median follow-up of 52 months (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimates 19.4% and 17.5%; P=0.45). In the S-ICD group, 83 patients received at least 1 shock, versus 57 patients in the TV-ICD group (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimates 19.2% and 11.5%; P=0.02). Patients in the S-ICD group had a total of 254 shocks, compared with 228 shocks in the TV-ICD group (P=0.68). First shock efficacy was 93.8% in the S-ICD group and 91.6% in the TV-ICD group (P=0.40). The first antitachycardia pacing attempt successfully terminated 46% of all monomorphic ventricular tachycardias, but accelerated the arrhythmia in 9.4%. Ten patients with S-ICD experienced 13 electrical storms, versus 18 patients with TV-ICD with 19 electrical storms. Patients with appropriate therapy had an almost 2-fold increased relative risk of electrical storms in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group (P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, no difference was observed in shock efficacy of S-ICD compared with TV-ICD. Although patients in the S-ICD group were more likely to receive an ICD shock, the total number of appropriate shocks was not different between the 2 groups. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01296022.

An implantable loop recorder or smartphone based single-lead electrocardiogram to detect arrhythmia in adults with congenital heart disease?

Background: The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) recommend screening in patients at risk for arrhythmic events. However, the optimal mode of detection is unknown. Methods: Baseline and follow-up data of symptomatic ACHD patients who received an implantable loop recorder (ILR) or who participated in a smartphone based single-lead electrocardiogram study were collected. The primary endpoint was time to first detected arrhythmia. Results: In total 116 ACHD patients (mean age 42 years, 44% male) were studied. The ILR group (n = 23) differed from the smartphone based single-lead electrocardiogram group (n = 93) in having a greater part of males and had more severe CHD and (near) syncope as qualifying diagnosis. In the smartphone based single-lead electrocardiogram group history of arrhythmia and palpitations were more frequent (all p < 0.05). Monitoring was performed for 40 and 79 patient-years for the ILR- and smartphone based single-lead electrocardiogram group, respectively. Arrhythmias occurred in 33 patients with an equal median time for both groups to first arrhythmia of 3 months (HR of 0.7, p = 0.81). Furthermore, atrial fibrillation occurred most often (n = 16) and common therapy changes included medication changes (n = 7) and implantation of pacemaker or Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) (N = 4). Symptoms or mode of detection were not a determinant of the first event. Conclusion: Non-invasive smartphone based single-lead electrocardiogram monitoring could be an acceptable alternative for ILR implantation in detecting arrhythmia in symptomatic ACHD patients in respect to diagnostic yield, safety and management decisions, especially in those without syncope.

Subcutaneous or Transvenous Defibrillator Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was designed to avoid complications related to the transvenous ICD lead by using an entirely extrathoracic placement. Evidence comparing these systems has been based primarily on observational studies. METHODS: We conducted a noninferiority trial in which patients with an indication for an ICD but no indication for pacing were assigned to receive a subcutaneous ICD or transvenous ICD. The primary end point was the composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks; the noninferiority margin for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio (subcutaneous ICD vs. transvenous ICD) was 1.45. A superiority analysis was prespecified if noninferiority was established. Secondary end points included death and appropriate shocks. RESULTS: A total of 849 patients (426 in the subcutaneous ICD group and 423 in the transvenous ICD group) were included in the analyses. At a median follow-up of 49.1 months, a primary end-point event occurred in 68 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 68 patients in the transvenous ICD group (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimated cumulative incidence, 15.1% and 15.7%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.39; P = 0.01 for noninferiority; P = 0.95 for superiority). Device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 44 in the transvenous ICD group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.09); inappropriate shocks occurred in 41 and 29 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.89 to 2.30). Death occurred in 83 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 68 in the transvenous ICD group (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.70); appropriate shocks occurred in 83 and 57 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.08 to 2.12). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with an indication for an ICD but no indication for pacing, the subcutaneous ICD was noninferior to the transvenous ICD with respect to device-related complications and inappropriate shocks. (Funded by Boston Scientific; PRAETORIAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01296022.).

Algorithm-Based Screening May Improve Patient Selection for the Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillator.

OBJECTIVES: The study sought to describe the concept of algorithm-based screening with an external subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) to evaluate sensing using the rhythm discrimination algorithm of the device. BACKGROUND: In a proportion of patients, screening for S-ICD therapy with the dedicated screening tool results in false negative and false positive results. METHODS: Both patients who failed the standard screening and who passed with abnormal baseline ECGs were screened with an external S-ICD to evaluate sensing at rest and during exercise in all 3 sensing vectors (algorithm-based screening). Patients with adequate sensing were implanted with an S-ICD. Follow-up data regarding (in)appropriate shocks was collected. RESULTS: Algorithm-based screening was performed in 15 patients. Group 1 consists of 8 who failed standard screening and Group 2 consists of 7 who passed and had abnormal ECGs. Six of 8 who failed standard screening in all sensing vectors demonstrated adequate sensing with the external S-ICD and were implanted with an S-ICD. Of these 6 implanted patients in Group 1, 1 inappropriate shock was observed duration median of 17 months' follow-up and 2 episodes of ventricular fibrillation were successfully treated. Of the 7 patients in Group 2, who passed standard screening, 2 demonstrated inadequate sensing during additional screening with the external S-ICD. No appropriate or inappropriate shocks were observed in Group 2 during 10 months' follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Algorithm-based screening with the external S-ICD may improve patient selection and reduce the number of false positive and false negative screening results of the standard screening method.

Surgical Management of Implantation-Related Complications of the Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed outcomes in patients in whom subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) therapy was continued after implantation-related complications, in order to avoid conversion to transvenous ICD therapy. BACKGROUND: Patients at risk for sudden cardiac death benefit from ICD therapy, despite a significant risk for complications. S-ICD has a similar complication rate as transvenous ICD therapy, but the absence of transvenous leads may hold long-term benefits, especially in young ICD patients. METHODS: In the largest single-center cohort available to date, S-ICD patients implanted between 2009 and 2015 were included. RESULTS: There were 123 patients at a median age of 40 years. During a median follow-up of 2 years, 10 patients (9.4%) suffered implant-related complications. There were 5 infections, 3 erosions, and 2 implant failures for which 21 surgical procedures were needed. In 9 of 10 patients, S-ICD therapy could be continued after intervention. In 6 patients, the period between extraction and reimplantation of the S-ICD system was bridged with a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD). The pulse generator was reimplanted at the original site in 5 patients and in 3 underneath the serratus anterior muscle. One patient was not reimplanted following extraction due to recurrent infections. Conversion to a transvenous ICD was not needed in any patient. CONCLUSIONS: In most patients with a complication, S-ICD therapy could be continued after intervention, avoiding the need to convert to a transvenous system. Bridging to recovery with a WCD and submuscular implantation of the pulse generator are effective treatment strategies to manage S-ICD complications.

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Lead Failure due to Twiddler Syndrome.

We present a case of Twiddler syndrome in a patient with a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD). The patient presented herself to the outpatient clinic with pain in the left chest. Chest x-ray confirmed Twiddler syndrome and ICD read-out revealed lead failure resulting in absent heart rhythm sensing in one vector. The lead and pulse generator were extracted and a new S-ICD system was reimplanted submuscular underneath the serratus anterior muscle to prevent reoccurrence. Lead investigation revealed an insulation defect caused by excessive mechanical stress.

Predictors and permanency of cardiac conduction disorders and necessity of pacing after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the Medtronic-CoreValve bioprosthesis (CoreValve Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) is associated with a high incidence of new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) and cardiac conduction disorders (CCDs) requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. Our objective was to investigate the predictors and permanency of CCDs after TAVI and specifically to evaluate the necessity for pacing. METHODS: In this single-center study, we included patients who underwent TAVI with the Medtronic-CoreValve bioprosthesis. Electrocardiographic evaluation was performed pre- and post-TAVI and at follow-up. Pacemaker follow-up data were obtained and analyzed. RESULTS: We included 121 patients (age 81 ± 8 years). LBBB developed in 47 patients, for which prosthesis size (26 mm; odds ratio [OR]: 4.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32-12.34, P = 0.01) and prosthesis depth (OR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.09-1.57, P = 0.004) were independent predictors. In 19%, this new-onset LBBB was temporary. Requirement for a PPM occurred in 23 patients, for which mitral annular calcification (MAC; OR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.05-1.56, P = 0.02) and preexisting right bundle branch block (RBBB; OR: 8.5, 95%CI: 1.61-44.91, P = 0.01) were independent predictors. At follow-up, 52% of the patients were continuously paced, but 22% of the patients had adequate atrioventricular conduction without the necessity for pacing. In the other 26% of the patients there was intermittent pacing. CONCLUSION: There is a high incidence of new-onset LBBB and PPM implantation following TAVI with a Medtronic-CoreValve bioprosthesis. Prosthesis depth and size were predictors for new LBBB, while MAC and preexistent RBBB were predictors for PPM implantation. In approximately one fifth of the patients, new-onset LBBB and the necessity for pacing are only temporary.

Which patients are not suitable for a subcutaneous ICD: incidence and predictors of failed QRS-T-wave morphology screening.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) relies on a pre-implantation QRS-T morphology screening (TMS) of the ECG to assure that it reliably detects the QRS complexes and T waves. The prevalence and clinical characteristics of the patients who fail this TMS is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: QRS-TMS was done in 230 consecutive ICD outpatients (75% male, age 57 ± 15 years) without an indication for cardiac pacing, using an ECG simulating the 3 sensing vectors of the S-ICD (TMS-ECG). Patients were defined suitable when at least 1 sensing vector was considered appropriate in both supine and standing position. In total, 7.4% of patients, who were all male, were considered not suitable for a S-ICD according to the TMS-ECG. Independent predictors for TMS failure were hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM; odds ratio [OR] 12.6), a heavy weight (OR 1.5), a prolonged QRS duration (OR 1.5) and a R:T ratio <3 in the lead with the largest T wave on a standard 12-lead surface ECG (OR 14.6). CONCLUSION: In patients without an indication for pacing, 7.4% would have been not suitable for a S-ICD according to the TMS. HCM, a heavy weight, a prolonged QRS duration and a R:T ratio <3 in the ECG lead with the largest T wave were independently associated with TMS failure. These data might alert physicians that selection of patients for a S-ICD should be considered with special caution in certain patient groups, because they may not satisfy ECG criteria for adequate sensing.

Inappropriate subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks due to T-wave oversensing can be prevented: implications for management.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate shocks (IASs) complicate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. The management of IASs in patients with a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) differs from that in patients with a conventional ICD because of different sensing algorithms and programming options. OBJECTIVE: To describe the management of IASs in patients with an S-ICD. METHODS: Patients were implanted with an S-ICD between February 2009 and July 2012. The prevalence data and clinical determinants of IASs were prospectively collected. In the case of T-wave oversensing (TWOS), an exercise test was performed, and all possible sensing vectors were screened for TWOS. The absence of TWOS defined a suitable vector. RESULTS: Eleven of 69 patients (54% men; mean age 39 ± 14 years; 73% primary prevention) received IASs after 8.9 ± 10 months of implantation (10.8% annual incidence rate). In 8 cases, TWOS caused IASs. Seven of these IASs occurred during exercise and 1 during atrial fibrillation with a high ventricular rate. To manage TWOS, in 7 of 8 patients the sensing vector was changed and in 5 of 8 patients the (un)conditional zone was changed. Hereafter, IASs recurred in 3 of 8 patients, in 2 because of programming errors. Hence, after reprogramming, we observed no IASs in 87.5% of the patients with TWOS during a follow-up of 14.1 ± 13 months. CONCLUSIONS: IASs due to TWOS in the S-ICD can be managed by reprogramming the sensing vector and/or the therapy zones of the device using a template acquired during exercise. Exercise-optimized programming can reduce future IASs, and standard exercise testing shortly after the implantation of an S-ICD may be considered in patients at an increased risk for TWOS.

Rationale and design of the PRAETORIAN trial: a Prospective, RAndomizEd comparison of subcuTaneOus and tRansvenous ImplANtable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are widely used to prevent fatal outcomes associated with life-threatening arrhythmic episodes in a variety of cardiac diseases. These ICDs rely on transvenous leads for cardiac sensing and defibrillation. A new entirely subcutaneous ICD overcomes problems associated with transvenous leads. However, the role of the subcutaneous ICD as an adjunctive or primary therapy in patients at risk for sudden cardiac death is unclear. STUDY DESIGN: The PRAETORIAN trial is an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, multicenter, prospective 2-arm trial that outlines the advantages and disadvantages of the subcutaneous ICD. Patients with a class I or IIa indication for ICD therapy without an indication for bradypacing or tachypacing are included. A total of 700 patients are randomized to either the subcutaneous or transvenous ICD (1:1). The study is powered to claim noninferiority of the subcutaneous ICD with respect to the composite primary endpoint of inappropriate shocks and ICD-related complications. After noninferiority is established, statistical analysis is done for potential superiority. Secondary endpoint comparisons of shock efficacy and patient mortality are also made. CONCLUSION: The PRAETORIAN trial is a randomized trial that aims to gain scientific evidence for the use of the subcutaneous ICD compared with the transvenous ICD in a population of patients with conventional ICD with respect to major ICD-related adverse events. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with trial ID NCT01296022.