Perioperative Safety and Early Patient and Device Outcomes Among Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantations : A Randomized, Multicenter Trial.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) improve survival in patients at risk for cardiac arrest, but are associated with intravascular lead-related complications. The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), with no intravascular components, was developed to minimize lead-related complications. OBJECTIVE: To assess key ICD performance measures related to delivery of ICD therapy, including inappropriate ICD shocks (delivered in absence of life-threatening arrhythmia) and failed ICD shocks (which did not terminate ventricular arrhythmia). DESIGN: Randomized, multicenter trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02881255). SETTING: The ATLAS trial. PATIENTS: 544 eligible patients (141 female) with a primary or secondary prevention indication for an ICD who were younger than age 60 years, had a cardiogenetic phenotype, or had prespecified risk factors for lead complications were electrocardiographically screened and 503 randomly assigned to S-ICD (251 patients) or transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) (252 patients). Mean follow-up was 2.5 years (SD, 1.1). Mean age was 49.0 years (SD, 11.5). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was perioperative major lead-related complications. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant reduction in perioperative, lead-related complications, which occurred in 1 patient (0.4%) with an S-ICD and in 12 patients (4.8%) with TV-ICD (-4.4%; 95% CI, -6.9 to -1.9; P = 0.001). There was a trend for more inappropriate shocks with the S-ICD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.37; 95% CI, 0.98 to 5.77), but no increase in failed appropriate ICD shocks (HR, 0.61 (0.15 to 2.57). Patients in the S-ICD group had more ICD site pain, measured on a 10-point numeric rating scale, on the day of implant (4.2 ± 2.8 vs. 2.9 ± 2.2; P < 0.001) and 1 month later (1.3 ± 1.8 vs. 0.9 ± 1.5; P = 0.035). LIMITATION: At present, the ATLAS trial is underpowered to detect differences in clinical shock outcomes; however, extended follow-up is ongoing. CONCLUSION: The S-ICD reduces perioperative, lead-related complications without significantly compromising the effectiveness of ICD shocks, but with more early postoperative pain and a trend for more inappropriate shocks. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Boston Scientific.

Rationale and design of the randomized prospective ATLAS study: Avoid Transvenous Leads in Appropriate Subjects.

BACKGROUND: The defibrillator lead is the weakest part of the transvenous (TV) implantable cardioverter defibrillation (ICD) system and a frequent cause of morbidity. Lead dislodgement, cardiac perforation, insertion-related trauma including pneumothorax and vascular injury, are common early complications of TV-ICD implantation. Venous occlusion, tricuspid valve dysfunction, lead fracture and lead insulation failure are additional, later complications. The introduction of a totally sub-cutaneous ICD (S-ICD) may reduce these lead-related issues, patient morbidity, hospitalizations and costs. However, such benefits compared to the TV-ICD have not been demonstrated in a randomized trial. DESIGN: ATLAS (Avoid Transvenous Leads in Appropriate Subjects) is a multi-centered, randomized, open-label, parallel group trial. Patients younger than 60 years are eligible. If older than 60 years, patients are eligible if they have an inherited heart rhythm disease, or risk factors for ICD-related complication, such as hemodialysis, a history of ICD or pacemaker infection, heart valve replacement, or severe pulmonary disease. This study will determine if using an S-ICD compared to a TV-ICD reduces a primary composite outcome of perioperative complications including pulmonary or pericardial perforation, lead dislodgement or dysfunction, tricuspid regurgitation and ipsilateral venous thrombosis. Five hundred patients will be enrolled from 14 Canadian hospitals, and data collected to both early- (at 6 months) and mid-term complications (at 24 months) as well as mortality and ICD shock efficacy. SUMMARY: The ATLAS randomized trial is comparing early- and mid-term vascular and lead-related complications among S-ICD versus TV-ICD recipients who are younger or at higher risk of ICD-related complications.

Effects of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Leads on the Tricuspid Valve and Right Ventricle: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: There are no randomized data to inform the extent to which transvenous cardiac leads cause tricuspid regurgitation (TR). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the effect of a transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) on TR severity, and secondarily, on right ventricular (RV) size and function. METHODS: We evaluated TR severity before and 6 months after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator insertion in a post hoc analysis of adults randomized to receive a transvenous (n = 252) or subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) (n = 251) device. TR and RV size and systolic function were assessed by echocardiographic images analyzed in a core laboratory. RESULTS: At baseline, at least mild TR was present in 30% of individuals. At 6 months, the proportion of participants with any TR in the TV-ICD group was 42% vs 19% in the S-ICD group (P < 0.001). The proportion with moderate or severe TR was 7% in the TV-ICD group vs 2% in the S-ICD group (P = 0.021). At 6 months, the OR of at least 1 grade worsening of TR in the TV-ICD group as compared with the S-ICD group was 7.2 (95% CI: 3.3-15.8; P < 0.001). There were no differences between groups with respect to RV size or systolic function. CONCLUSIONS: Six months following TV-ICD insertion, there was a 7-fold increase in the risk of at least 1 grade worsening of TR, with 7% of individuals having TR that was moderate or severe. There was no detectable difference in RV size or function; however, longer follow-up is needed.

Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in the Older Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major cause of preventable strokes. Screening asymptomatic individuals for AF may increase anticoagulant use for stroke prevention. Objective: To evaluate 2 home-based AF screening interventions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited individuals from primary care practices aged 75 years or older with hypertension and without known AF. From April 5, 2015, to March 26, 2019, 856 participants were enrolled from 48 practices. Interventions: The control group received standard care (routine clinical follow-up plus a pulse check and heart auscultation at baseline and 6 months). The screening group received a 2-week continuous electrocardiographic (cECG) patch monitor to wear at baseline and at 3 months, in addition to standard care. The screening group also received automated home blood pressure (BP) machines with oscillometric AF screening capability to use twice-daily during the cECG monitoring periods. Main Outcomes and Measures: With intention-to-screen analysis, the primary outcome was AF detected by cECG monitoring or clinically within 6 months. Secondary outcomes included anticoagulant use, device adherence, and AF detection by BP monitors. Results: Of the 856 participants, 487 were women (56.9%); mean (SD) age was 80.0 (4.0) years. Median cECG wear time was 27.4 of 28 days (interquartile range [IQR], 18.4-28.0 days). In the primary analysis, AF was detected in 23 of 434 participants (5.3%) in the screening group vs 2 of 422 (0.5%) in the control group (relative risk, 11.2; 95% CI, 2.7-47.1; P = .001; absolute difference, 4.8%; 95% CI, 2.6%-7.0%; P < .001; number needed to screen, 21). Of those with cECG-detected AF, median total time spent in AF was 6.3 hours (IQR, 4.2-14.0 hours; range 1.3 hours-28 days), and median duration of the longest AF episode was 5.7 hours (IQR, 2.9-12.9 hours). Anticoagulation was initiated in 15 of 20 patients (75.0%) with cECG-detected AF. By 6 months, anticoagulant therapy had been prescribed for 18 of 434 participants (4.1%) in the screening group vs 4 of 422 (0.9%) in the control group (relative risk, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.5-12.8; P = .007; absolute difference, 3.2%; 95% CI, 1.1%-5.3%; P = .003). Twice-daily AF screening using the home BP monitor had a sensitivity of 35.0% (95% CI, 15.4%-59.2%), specificity of 81.0% (95% CI, 76.7%-84.8%), positive predictive value of 8.9% (95% CI, 4.9%-15.5%), and negative predictive value of 95.9% (95% CI, 94.5%-97.0%). Adverse skin reactions requiring premature discontinuation of cECG monitoring occurred in 5 of 434 participants (1.2%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, among older community-dwelling individuals with hypertension, AF screening with a wearable cECG monitor was well tolerated, increased AF detection 10-fold, and prompted initiation of anticoagulant therapy in most cases. Compared with continuous ECG, intermittent oscillometric screening with a BP monitor was an inferior strategy for detecting paroxysmal AF. Large trials with hard clinical outcomes are now needed to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of AF screening. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02392754.