Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators in children and young adults: A meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has been demonstrated to successfully prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD) in children and young adults. A wide range of device-related complications/malfunctions have been described, which depend on the intrinsic design of the defibrillation system (transvenous-implantable cardioverter defibrillator [TV-ICD] vs. subcutaneous-implantable cardioverter defibrillator [S-ICD]). OBJECTIVE: To compare the device-related complications and inappropriate shocks with TV-ICD versus S-ICD. METHODS AND RESULTS: Electronic databases were queried for studies focusing on the prevention of SCD in children and young adults with TV-ICD or S-ICD. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as odds ratio (OR) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary endpoint was a composite of any device-related complications and inappropriate shocks. We identified a total of five studies including 236 patients (Group S-ICD: 76 patients; Group TV-ICD: 160 patients) with a mean follow-up time of 54.2 ± 24.9 months. S-ICD implantation contributed to a significant reduction in the risk of the primary endpoint of any device-related complications and inappropriate shocks (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05-0.73; p = .02). S-ICD was also associated with a significantly lower incidence of inappropriate shocks (OR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.11-0.74; p = .01) and lead-related complications (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05-0.66; p = .01). A trend toward a higher risk of pocket complications (OR: 5.91; 95% CI: 0.98-35.63; p = .05) was recorded in patients with S-ICD. CONCLUSION: Children and young adults undergoing S-ICD implantation may have a lower risk of a composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks, compared to TV-ICD patients.

Subcutaneous and Transvenous ICDs: an Update on Contemporary Questions and Controversies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: While the subcutaneous (S-) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICDs) is an alternative to the transvenous (TV-) ICD in many patients, optimal use remains unclear. In this review, we summarize recent clinically relevant data on sensing algorithms, inappropriate shocks, defibrillation testing, and battery and electrode failures. RECENT FINDINGS: Changes in sensing algorithms and S-ICD programming have significantly decreased inappropriate shock rates. Avoiding fat below the S-ICD coil and can is key for reducing the defibrillation threshold. While S-ICD battery and electrode failures have resulted in recalls, system components remain commercially available since failure rates are low and no other similar devices are available. The S-ICD is a good alternative to the TV-ICD for many patients, and particularly in light of recently developed device algorithms and improvements in implant technique. Future research will need to better understand: the impact of S-ICD electrode and battery failures and the potential for integrating leadless pacing into a modular S-ICD platform.

Safety and Efficacy of Subcutaneous Cardioverter Defibrillator in Patients at High Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death　- Primary Japanese Experience.

BACKGROUND: The entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) was introduced as a new alternative to conventional transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) in Japan in February 2016, but its safety and efficacy are unclear.Methods and Results:A total of 60 patients (48 men, median age, 60 years; IQR, 44-67 years; primary prevention, n=24) underwent S-ICD implantation between February 2016 and August 2017. The device pocket was formed in the intermuscular space between the serratus anterior muscle and the latissimus dorsi muscle, and the parasternal S-ICD lead was placed according to pre-implant screening. Defibrillation test was performed in 56 patients (93%). Ventricular fibrillation (VF) was induced in 55 patients and terminated by a single 65-J shock in all patients. The median time to shock therapy was 13.4 s (IQR, 12.1-14.9 s) and the median post-shock impedance of the S-ICD lead was 64 Ω (IQR, 58-77 Ω). There were no operation-related complications or subsequent infectious complications. During follow-up (median, 275 days; IQR, 107-421 days), 1 patient (1.7%) had appropriate shock for VF with successful termination, whereas 5 patients (8.3%) had inappropriate shock due to oversensing of myopotential (n=3) or T-wave (n=1), and detection of supraventricular tachycardia (n=1). CONCLUSIONS: S-ICD is a safe and effective alternative to conventional TV-ICD. The long-term safety and efficacy of the S-ICD need further investigation.

Anesthesia for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: Perspectives from the clinical experience of a U.S. panel of physicians.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Worldwide adoption of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) for preventing sudden cardiac death continues to increase, as longer-term evidence demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the S-ICD expands. As a relatively new technology, comprehensive anesthesia guidance for the management of patients undergoing S-ICD placement is lacking. This article presents advantages and disadvantages of different periprocedural sedation and anesthesia options for S-ICD implants including general anesthesia, monitored anesthesia care, regional anesthesia, and nonanesthesia personnel administered sedation and analgesia. METHODS: Guidance, for approaches to anesthesia care during S-ICD implantation, is presented based upon literature review and consensus of a panel of high-volume S-ICD implanters, a regional anesthesiologist, and a cardiothoracic anesthesiologist with significant S-ICD experience. The panel developed suggested actions for perioperative sedation, anesthesia, surgical practices, and a decision algorithm for S-ICD implantation. CONCLUSIONS: While S-ICD implantation currently requires higher sedation than transvenous ICD systems, the panel consensus is that general anesthesia is not required or is obligatory for the majority of patients for the experienced S-ICD implanter. The focus of the implanting physician and the anesthesia services should be to maximize patient comfort and take into consideration patient-specific comorbidities, with a low threshold to consult the anesthesiology team.

Update on Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices for Anesthesiologists.

With the advent of "wireless" endocardial pacing, the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and leadless pacemakers comes an added layer of complexity to the perioperative management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED). Since no formal recommendations currently exist for these new CIED technologies, preoperative identification of these devices, understanding their functionality, and developing an individualized perioperative management plan are imperative for the anesthesiologist. The following review is intended to provide the background information required to devise a successful perioperative management strategy for newer CIEDs.

An Overview of Clinical Outcomes in Transvenous and Subcutaneous ICD Patients.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Clear guidelines on when to select a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) over a transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) are lacking. This review will provide an overview of the most recent clinical data on S-ICD and TV-ICD therapy by pooling comparison studies in order to aid clinical decision making. RECENT FINDINGS: Pooling of observational-matched studies demonstrated an incidence rate ratio (IRR) for device-related complication of 0.90 (95% CI 0.58-1.42) and IRR for lead-related complications of 0.15 (95% CI 0.06-0.39) in favor of S-ICD. The IRR for device infections was 2.00 (95% CI 0.95-4.22) in favor of TV-ICD. Both appropriate shocks (IRR 0.67 (95% CI 0.42-1.06)) and inappropriate shocks (IRR 1.17 (95% CI 0.77-1.79)) did not differ significantly between both groups. With randomized data underway, the observational data demonstrate that the S-ICD is associated with reduced lead complications, but this has not yet resulted in a significant reduction in total number of complications compared to TV-ICDs. New technologies are expected to make the S-ICD a more attractive alternative.

Combined subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator and pacemaker devices in complex congenital heart disease: a single-center experienced based study.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICD) are widely accepted therapy in congenital heart disease (CHD) patients at risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias or sudden cardiac death (SCD) when pacing is not required. Occasionally, pacemaker (PM)-dependent CHD patients will subsequently develop an indication for a cardioverter defibrillator. The use of S-ICD in complex CHD patients who have had already PM devices implanted implies some specific considerations, as the safety for these patients in unknown and recommendations among physicians may vary widely. METHODS: We review the data and studied the indications for S-ICD in complex CHD with previous PM and discuss its usefulness in clinical practice. RESULTS: From a large cohort of 345 patients enrolled in the S-ICD Monaldi care registry, which encompass all the patients implanted in the Monaldi Hospital of Naples, we considered 11 consecutive complex CHD patients (10M/1F aged 40.4 ±18.4 years) who underwent S-ICD implant after a previous PM implant, from February 2015 to October 2022. Mean follow-up was 25.5 ± 22 months. All the patients showed a good compliance to the device system with no complications (infections or skin erosions). CONCLUSIONS: In complex CHD with already implanted PM devices, S-ICD implant appears to be a safe alternative to PM upgrading to transvenous ICD system, avoiding abandoned leads or life-threatening lead extraction. However, there are important issues with regard to testing and programming that need to be addressed at the time of implantation.

A Case of Young Brugada Syndrome Patient With Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Complication Requiring Device Extraction and Reimplantation.

Brugada syndrome is an arrhythmogenic condition characterized by ST-segment elevation and J-point elevation in at least two precordial leads. Most ST segment elevations are associated with myocardial infarction, although other conditions such as pericarditis, channelopathies, and a few genetic conditions should be considered. Brugada syndrome is an inherited cardiac condition associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). The most common presentation is palpitations or syncopal events in patients presenting to the emergency department. We present the case of a young 26-year-old patient who was diagnosed with Brugada syndrome at the age of 11 following a syncopal event at school and had a transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implanted. He was found to have a high lead impedance following a collapse at his routine outpatient device clinic appointment and was transferred to our hospital. He underwent successful transvenous ICD and lead extraction and had a subcutaneous ICD implanted.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator in children and adolescents: results from the S-ICD "Monaldi care" registry.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) are widely accepted therapy in children and adolescents who are survivors of cardiac arrest or for high-risk patients with inheritable channelopathies, cardiomyopathies, or congenital heart disease. Initial experience with subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) systems has shown a high efficacy in adults. However, the use of S-ICD in children and adolescents implies some specific considerations, as the safety for these patients is unknown and recommendations among physicians may vary widely. METHODS: We reviewed the data and studied the indications for S-ICD in children and adolescents and discuss the preliminary clinical experience. RESULTS: From a cohort of 297 patients enrolled in the S-ICD "Monaldi care" registry that encompass all the patients implanted in the Monaldi Hospital of Naples, we considered 21 consecutive children and adolescents (mean age 13.9 years, range 8-18 years, mean body weight 59.3 kg, range 38-100 kg) who underwent S-ICD implant from April 2014 to June 2020. Mean follow-up was 41.9±21.9 months. Only one patient presented, 6 weeks after implantation, skin erosion at the inferior parasternal incision that resolved after antibiotic therapy, without the necessity of any system revision. Two patients experienced appropriate shocks and four inappropriate shocks, due to T wave oversensing or atrial arrhythmia. Only one patient, with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia, required a system revision after 36 months of the first implantation and then a reintervention with a replacement of the S-ICD by a conventional ICD system. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience suggests that the S-ICD device can be used in some children over the age of 8 as well as adults, with a similar rate of unwanted side effects, and early evidence of apparent efficacy.

Case report: Removal of a subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillator in a pediatric patient with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy after a septal myectomy. Insights on current indications of type of ICD in children with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and left ventricular tract obstruction.

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is a heart muscle disease with an annual incidence between 0.24 and 0.47/100000 in childhood. Sudden cardiac death is the most common cause of death in this population. Although some medical treatment can decrease the risk of sudden cardiac death, implantable cardioverter defibrillator continues to be the most reliable treatment. Different types of devices and programming strategies can be used in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy depending on each center and specific patient condition. We report a pediatric patient affected with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy who had and ICD implantation in primary prevention. Four years later he developed symptomatic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction and a surgical septal myectomy was performed. After the myectomy the patient developed complete left bundle branch block on his 12 lead ECG, and unfortunately none of the S-ICD vectors were suitable after the myectomy and it had to be explanted and replaced for a new transvenous ICD.

Efficacy and Complications of Subcutaneous versus Conventional Cardioverter Defibrillators: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators are used to prevent sudden cardiac death. The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was newly developed to overcome the limitations of the conventional implantable cardioverter defibrillator-transvenous device. The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator is indicated for young patients with heart disease, congenital heart defects, and poor venous access, who have an indication for implantable cardioverter defibrillator without the need for anti-bradycardic stimulation. We aimed to compare the efficacy and complications of subcutaneous with transvenous implantable cardioverter- defibrillator devices. METHODOLOGY: A systematic review was conducted using different databases. The inclusion criteria were observational and clinical randomized trials with no language limits and no publication date limit that compared subcutaneous with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. The selected patients were aged > 18 years with complex ventricular arrhythmia. RESULTS: Five studies involving 2111 patients who underwent implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation were included. The most frequent complication in the subcutaneous device group was infection, followed by hematoma formation and electrode migration. For the transvenous device, the most frequent complications were electrode migration and infection. Regarding efficacy, the total rates of appropriate shocks were 9.04% and 20.47% in the subcutaneous and transvenous device groups, respectively, whereas inappropriate shocks to the subcutaneous and transvenous device groups were 11,3% and 10,7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: When compared to the transvenous device, the subcutaneous device had lower complication rates owing to lead migration and less inappropriate shocks due to supraventricular tachycardia; nevertheless, infection rates and improper shocks due to T wave oversensing were comparable for both devices CRD42021251569.

The need for a subsequent transvenous system in patients implanted with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

BACKGROUND: The absence of pacing capabilities may reduce the appeal of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) devices for patients at risk for conduction disorders or with antitachycardia pacing (ATP)/cardiac resynchronization (CRT) requirements. Reports of rates of S-ICD to transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) system switch in real-world scenarios are limited. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the need for a subsequent transvenous (TV) device in patients implanted with an S-ICD and its predictors. METHODS: All patients implanted with an S-ICD were enrolled from the multicenter, real-world iSUSI (International SUbcutaneouS Implantable cardioverter defibrillator) Registry. The need for a TV device and its clinical reason, and appropriate and inappropriate device therapies were assessed. Logistic regression with Firth penalization was used to assess the association between baseline and procedural characteristics and the overall need for a subsequent TV device. RESULTS: A total of 1509 patients were enrolled (age 50.8 ± 15.8 years; 76.9% male; 32.0% ischemic; left ventricular ejection fraction 38% [30%-60%]). Over 26.5 [13.4-42.9] months, 155 (10.3%) and 144 (9.3%) patients experienced appropriate and inappropriate device therapies, respectively. Forty-one patients (2.7%) required a TV device (13 bradycardia; 10 need for CRT; 10 inappropriate shocks). Body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2 and chronic kidney disease (CKD) were associated with need for a TV device (odds ratio [OR] 2.57 [1.37-4.81], P = .003; and OR 2.67 [1.29-5.54], P = .008, respectively). CONCLUSION: A low rate (2.7%) of conversion from S-ICD to a TV device was observed at follow-up, with need for antibradycardia pacing, ATP, or CRT being the main reasons. BMI >30 kg/m2 and CKD predicted all-cause need for a TV device.

Comparing the safety of subcutaneous versus transvenous ICDs: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The use of transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (TV-ICDs) is associated with multiple risks related to the presence of the defibrillator leads within the venous system and right side of the heart, including endocarditis, venous occlusion, tricuspid regurgitation, and potential lead failure. The emergence of subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICDs) may potentially overcome the aforementioned disadvantages. However, evidence validating the safety of S-ICDs relative to TV-ICDs is limited. The present study aimed to synthesize and analyze available data from published studies to comprehensively compare transvenous and subcutaneous ICDs. METHODS: Different databases were searched for full-text publications with a direct comparison of TV- and S-ICDs. Fixed effect models were applied to pooled data, and no study-to-study heterogeneity was detected. RESULTS: Data from 7 studies totaling 1666 patients were pooled together. Compared to S-ICDs, the risk of suffering device-related complications was higher in patients with TV-ICDs (OR = 1.71; 95% CI: 1.23-2.38). The number of patients with an S-ICD who suffered inappropriate shocks (IS) was not significantly different than patients with a TV-ICD (OR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.65-1.30). Subgroup analysis indicated that the TV-ICD group had a higher risk of IS due to supraventricular oversensing (OR = 3.29; 95% CI: 1.92-5.63) while T-wave oversensing tending to cause IS in the S-ICD group (OR = 0.09; 95% CI: 0.03-0.23). The risk of device-related infection in the S-ICD group was not any lower than that in the TV-ICD group (OR = 1.57; 95% CI: 0.67-3.68). The survival rate without any complications during a 1-year follow-up period was similar between the 2 groups (HR = 1.23; 95% CI: 0.81-1.86), although it was assumed that the trend leaned toward more complications in patients with a TV-ICD. CONCLUSION: The present study verified the safety of S-ICDs based on pooled data. Although there were no differences between TV- and S-ICDs in the short term, fewer adverse events were found in patients with S-ICDs during long-term follow-up.

Successful Subcutaneous Defibrillator Implantation in a Pregnant Patient With Long QT Syndrome.

A 26-year-old woman with recurrent unexplained syncope in the postpartum period was diagnosed with long QT syndrome type 2. Traditional implantation of defibrillator using fluoroscopy became contraindicated after she again became pregnant prior to device implantation. A subcutaneous defibrillator was successfully implanted in the second trimester, after a multidisciplinary evaluation. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Lead Macrodislodgement of a Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Results in a Reel Problem.

Lead macrodislodgement is a rare complication of cardiac implantable electronic devices associated with patient-related risk factors. This paper outlines a case of reel syndrome secondary to device manipulation 3 months after subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation and describes the challenges with lead macrodislodgement diagnosis, mechanisms, and management. (Level of Difficulty: Beginner.).

State-of-the-art consensus on non-transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy.

Within the last decade, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) systems with non-transvenous leads were developed in order to minimize complications related to the cardiovascular position of transvenous ICD leads. This national expert consensus gives an overview of potential indications for the implantation of non-transvenous ICD systems, and provides specific recommendations for implantation, follow-up, and complication management in patients with subcutaneous ICD. Regarding particular issues like the necessity for shock efficacy testing, or the clinical outcome as compared to transvenous ICD, randomized data are expected in the near future.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator indication in prevention of sudden cardiac death in difficult clinical situations: A French expert position paper.

The introduction of a new technology always raises questions about its place compared with the reference technology. The use of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator to prevent sudden cardiac death is now a widely proven technique, with a clear statement of its indication in the guidelines. More recently, a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator has been introduced, and appears to be an attractive technique as it removes the need to implant a lead inside the right ventricle to treat the patient, which should dramatically decrease the risk of complications over time. Currently, only one model of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator is available on the market; its indications are the same as for transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators, except for patients who need stimulation because of conduction disorders or ventricular tachycardias that can potentially be treated effectively by antitachycardia pacing. The different technical characteristics of transvenous versus subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators therefore raise the question of which to choose in different clinical settings. The experts who participated in the preparation of this manuscript had three meetings, organized by the company Boston Scientific. Each expert prepared the draft of a section corresponding to a clinical situation. The choice between transvenous versus subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator was then voted on by all the experts. The results of the votes are presented in this manuscript, as it seemed important to us to show the disparities of opinion that can exist in certain situations. The votes were cast independently and anonymously.

Patient characteristics and in-hospital complications of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for Brugada syndrome in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Clinical features and complications of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation for Brugada syndrome have not been well studied. METHODS: We used the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database to retrospectively investigate patients who had undergone ICD implantation between April 2016 and March 2017. We compared the characteristics and in-hospital complications of patients with Brugada syndrome implanted with S-ICD or transvenous (TV)-ICD. RESULTS: We extracted 3090 patients who received ICD implantation. Among them, we identified 278 Brugada patients. The mean age was 43 ± 14.4 years and 262 (94%) were male. Of these 278 patients, 136 (49%) received S-ICD and 142 (51%) received TV-ICD. TV-ICD recipients had a history of atrial fibrillation more frequently compared with S-ICD recipients. The median (interquartile range) of length of hospital stay was not significantly different between patients with S-ICD and TV-ICD (13 days [10-20.5] vs 12 days [10-18], respectively). The prevalence of in-hospital complications after ICD implantation was similar between the two groups. There were no patients with cardiac tamponade, hemothorax, pneumothorax, cardiovascular event, stroke, and death following the procedure during hospitalization in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term safety of S-ICD implantation may be identical to that of TV-ICD. Large prospective studies are warranted to compare the effects and long-term safety of S-ICD compared with TV-ICD.

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators Implantation Without Defibrillation Threshold Testing: A Single Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) system has been proven to be an effective therapy for prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in selected patients. Although the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation (SIMPLE) trial has shown that defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing is not necessary for transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) systems, it is still recommended for S-ICD systems. We aimed to study the efficacy and safety of S-ICD implantation without DFT in our Heart Center with the comparison of S-ICD patients' outcome to those with a single chamber TV-ICD without DFT in the same period. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients underwent S-ICD without DFT from December 2014 to May 2016 with the comparison to single chamber TV-ICD patients implanted during the same period. RESULTS: Thirty consecutive patients (23 males (76.7%); mean age 41 ± 13 years; mean left ventricular ejection fraction 30±12%) received a S-ICD for primary (25 patients, 83.3%) or secondary prevention (five patients, 16.7%) of SCD. During a mean follow-up of 710.6 ± 190 days, three patients received 38 appropriate ICD shocks (90.5%), and two patients received four inappropriate shocks (9.5%). There were two mortalities (6.7%): one cardiac and one non-cardiac. When compared to 30 consecutive who received a single chamber TV-ICD during the same period, there was no significant difference in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of S-ICD using intermuscular approach without DFT seems to be safe and effective. Data from large S-ICD registries with long-term follow-up, and preferably randomized controlled studies, are needed to confirm this finding.