A Modular Communicative Leadless Pacing-Defibrillator System.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is associated with fewer lead-related complications than a transvenous ICD; however, the subcutaneous ICD cannot provide bradycardia and antitachycardia pacing. Whether a modular pacing-defibrillator system comprising a leadless pacemaker in wireless communication with a subcutaneous ICD to provide antitachycardia and bradycardia pacing is safe remains unknown. METHODS: We conducted a multinational, single-group study that enrolled patients at risk for sudden death from ventricular arrhythmias and followed them for 6 months after implantation of a modular pacemaker-defibrillator system. The safety end point was freedom from leadless pacemaker-related major complications, evaluated against a performance goal of 86%. The two primary performance end points were successful communication between the pacemaker and the ICD (performance goal, 88%) and a pacing threshold of up to 2.0 V at a 0.4-msec pulse width (performance goal, 80%). RESULTS: We enrolled 293 patients, 162 of whom were in the 6-month end-point cohort and 151 of whom completed the 6-month follow-up period. The mean age of the patients was 60 years, 16.7% were women, and the mean (±SD) left ventricular ejection fraction was 33.1±12.6%. The percentage of patients who were free from leadless pacemaker-related major complications was 97.5%, which exceeded the prespecified performance goal. Wireless-device communication was successful in 98.8% of communication tests, which exceeded the prespecified goal. Of 151 patients, 147 (97.4%) had pacing thresholds of 2.0 V or less, which exceeded the prespecified goal. The percentage of episodes of arrhythmia that were successfully terminated by antitachycardia pacing was 61.3%, and there were no episodes for which antitachycardia pacing was not delivered owing to communication failure. Of 162 patients, 8 died (4.9%); none of the deaths were deemed to be related to arrhythmias or the implantation procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The leadless pacemaker in wireless communication with a subcutaneous ICD exceeded performance goals for freedom from major complications related to the leadless pacemaker, for communication between the leadless pacemaker and subcutaneous ICD, and for the percentage of patients with a pacing threshold up to 2.0 V at a 0.4-msec pulse width at 6 months. (Funded by Boston Scientific; MODULAR ATP ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04798768.).

A Dual-Chamber Leadless Pacemaker.

BACKGROUND: Single-chamber ventricular leadless pacemakers do not support atrial pacing or consistent atrioventricular synchrony. A dual-chamber leadless pacemaker system consisting of two devices implanted percutaneously, one in the right atrium and one in the right ventricle, would make leadless pacemaker therapy a treatment option for a wider range of indications. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, single-group study to evaluate the safety and performance of a dual-chamber leadless pacemaker system. Patients with a conventional indication for dual-chamber pacing were eligible for participation. The primary safety end point was freedom from complications (i.e., device- or procedure-related serious adverse events) at 90 days. The first primary performance end point was a combination of adequate atrial capture threshold and sensing amplitude at 3 months. The second primary performance end point was at least 70% atrioventricular synchrony at 3 months while the patient was sitting. RESULTS: Among the 300 patients enrolled, 190 (63.3%) had sinus-node dysfunction and 100 (33.3%) had atrioventricular block as the primary pacing indication. The implantation procedure was successful (i.e., two functioning leadless pacemakers were implanted and had established implant-to-implant communication) in 295 patients (98.3%). A total of 35 device- or procedure-related serious adverse events occurred in 29 patients. The primary safety end point was met in 271 patients (90.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 87.0 to 93.7), which exceeded the performance goal of 78% (P<0.001). The first primary performance end point was met in 90.2% of the patients (95% CI, 86.8 to 93.6), which exceeded the performance goal of 82.5% (P<0.001). The mean (±SD) atrial capture threshold was 0.82±0.70 V, and the mean P-wave amplitude was 3.58±1.88 mV. Of the 21 patients (7%) with a P-wave amplitude of less than 1.0 mV, none required device revision for inadequate sensing. At least 70% atrioventricular synchrony was achieved in 97.3% of the patients (95% CI, 95.4 to 99.3), which exceeded the performance goal of 83% (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The dual-chamber leadless pacemaker system met the primary safety end point and provided atrial pacing and reliable atrioventricular synchrony for 3 months after implantation. (Funded by Abbott Medical; Aveir DR i2i ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05252702.).

Efficacy and Safety of an Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator.

BACKGROUND: The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has a single lead implanted substernally to enable pause-prevention pacing, antitachycardia pacing, and defibrillation energy similar to that of transvenous ICDs. The safety and efficacy of extravascular ICDs are not yet known. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, single-group, nonrandomized, premarket global clinical study involving patients with a class I or IIa indication for an ICD, all of whom received an extravascular ICD system. The primary efficacy end point was successful defibrillation at implantation. The efficacy objective would be met if the lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage of patients with successful defibrillation was greater than 88%. The primary safety end point was freedom from major system- or procedure-related complications at 6 months. The safety objective would be met if the lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage of patients free from such complications was greater than 79%. RESULTS: A total of 356 patients were enrolled, 316 of whom had an implantation attempt. Among the 302 patients in whom ventricular arrhythmia could be induced and who completed the defibrillation testing protocol, the percentage of patients with successful defibrillation was 98.7% (lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 96.6%; P<0.001 for the comparison with the performance goal of 88%); 299 of 316 patients (94.6%) were discharged with a working ICD system. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients free from major system- or procedure-related complications at 6 months was 92.6% (lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 89.0%; P<0.001 for the comparison with the performance goal of 79%). No major intraprocedural complications were reported. At 6 months, 25 major complications were observed, in 23 of 316 patients (7.3%). The success rate of antitachycardia pacing, as assessed with generalized estimating equations, was 50.8% (95% CI, 23.3 to 77.8). A total of 29 patients received 118 inappropriate shocks for 81 arrhythmic episodes. Eight systems were explanted without extravascular ICD replacement over the 10.6-month mean follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective global study, we found that extravascular ICDs were implanted safely and were able to detect and terminate induced ventricular arrhythmias at the time of implantation. (Funded by Medtronic; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04060680.).

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.

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.

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.).

Voltage gradients in transvenous and subcutaneous defibrillation and their risk of myocardial damage.

INTRODUCTION: Transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks have been associated with cardiac biomarker elevations and are thought in some cases to contribute to adverse clinical outcomes and mortality, possibly from myocardium exposed to excessive shock voltage gradients. Currently, there are only limited data for comparison with subcutaneous ICDs. We sought to compare ventricular myocardium voltage gradients resulting from transvenous (TV) and subcutaneous defibrillator (S-ICD) shocks to assess their risk of myocardial damage. METHODS: A finite element model was derived from thoracic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Voltage gradients were modeled for an S-ICD with a left-sided parasternal coil and a left-sided TV-ICD with a mid-cavity, a septal right ventricle (RV) coil, or a dual coil lead (TV mid, TV septal, TV septal + superior vena cava [SVC]). High gradients were defined as > 100 V/cm. RESULTS: The volumes of ventricular myocardium with high gradients > 100 V/cm were 0.02, 2.4, 7.7, and 0 cc for TV mid, TV septal, TV septal + SVC, and S-ICD, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our models suggest that S-ICD shocks produce more uniform gradients in the myocardium, with less exposure to potentially damaging electrical fields, compared to TV-ICDs. Dual coil TV leads yield higher gradients, as does closer proximity of the shock coil to the myocardium.

Reduction in long-term mortality using remote device monitoring in a large real-world population of patients with implantable defibrillators.

AIMS: Remote monitoring (RM) for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) is advocated for the potential of early detection of disease progression and device dysfunction. While studies have examined the effect of RM on clinical outcomes in carefully selected populations of heart failure patients implanted with ICDs from a single vendor, there is a paucity of data in real-world patients. We aimed to assess the long-term effect of RM in a representative ICD population using real-world data. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is an observational retrospective longitudinal study of 1004 patients implanted with an ICD or cardiac resynchronization therapy device (CRT-D) from all device vendors between 2010 and 2021. Patients started on RM (N = 403) within 90 days following de novo device implantation and yearly in-office visits were compared with patients with only bi-yearly in-office follow-up (non-RM, N = 601). In a propensity score matched cohort of 430 patients (mean age 61.4 ± 14.3 years, 26.7% female), all-cause mortality at 4-year was 12.6% in the RM and 27.7% in the non-RM group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.82; P = 0.005]. No difference in inappropriate ICD-therapy (HR 1.90, 95% CI 0.86-4.21; P = 0.122) was observed. The risk of appropriate ICD-therapy (HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.07-2.74; P = 0.026) was higher in the RM group. CONCLUSION: Remote monitoring was associated with a reduction in long-term all-cause and cardiac mortality compared with traditional office visits in a real-world ICD population.

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 SIDECAR project: S-IcD registry in European paediatriC and young Adult patients with congenital heaRt defects.

AIMS: Subcutaneous-implantable cardiac defibrillators (S-ICDs) are used increasingly to prevent sudden cardiac death in young patients. This study was set up to gain insight in the indications for S-ICD, possible complications, and their predictors and follow-up results. METHODS AND RESULTS: A multicentre, observational, retrospective, non-randomized, standard-of-care registry on S-ICD outcome in young patients with congenital heart diseases (CHDs), inherited arrhythmias (IAs), idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (IVF), and cardiomyopathies (CMPs). Anthropometry was registered as well as implantation technique, mid-term device-related complications, and incidence of appropriate/inappropriate shocks (IASs). Data are reported as median (interquartile range) or mean ± standard deviation. Eighty-one patients (47% CMPs, 20% CHD, 21% IVF, and 12% IA), aged 15 (14-17) years, with body mass index (BMI) 21.8 ± 3.8 kg/m2, underwent S-ICD implantation (primary prevention in 59%). This was performed with two-incision technique in 81% and with a subcutaneous pocket in 59%. Shock and conditional zones were programmed at 250 (200-250) and 210 (180-240) b.p.m., respectively. No intraoperative complications occurred. Follow up was 19 (6-35) months: no defibrillation failure occurred, 17% of patients received appropriate shocks, 13% of patients received IAS (supraventricular tachycardias 40%, T-wave oversensing 40%, and non-cardiac oversensing 20%). Reprogramming, proper drug therapy, and surgical revision avoided further IAS. Complications requiring surgical revision occurred in 9% of patients, with higher risks in patients with three-incision procedures [hazard ratio (HR) 4.3, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.5-34, P = 0.038] and BMI < 20 (HR 5.1, 95% CI 1-24, P = 0.031). CONCLUSION: This multicentre European paediatric registry showed good S-ICD efficacy and safety in young patients. Newer implantation techniques and BMI > 20 showed better outcome.

Optimizing patient selection for primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: utilizing multimodal machine learning to assess risk of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator non-benefit.

AIMS: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is suboptimal as a sole marker for predicting sudden cardiac death (SCD). Machine learning (ML) provides new opportunities for personalized predictions using complex, multimodal data. This study aimed to determine if risk stratification for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation can be improved by ML models that combine clinical variables with 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECG) time-series features. METHODS AND RESULTS: A multicentre study of 1010 patients (64.9 ± 10.8 years, 26.8% female) with ischaemic, dilated, or non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy, and LVEF ≤ 35% implanted with an ICD between 2007 and 2021 for primary prevention of SCD in two academic hospitals was performed. For each patient, a raw 12-lead, 10-s ECG was obtained within 90 days before ICD implantation, and clinical details were collected. Supervised ML models were trained and validated on a development cohort (n = 550) from Hospital A to predict ICD non-arrhythmic mortality at three-year follow-up (i.e. mortality without prior appropriate ICD-therapy). Model performance was evaluated on an external patient cohort from Hospital B (n = 460). At three-year follow-up, 16.0% of patients had died, with 72.8% meeting criteria for non-arrhythmic mortality. Extreme gradient boosting models identified patients with non-arrhythmic mortality with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.90 [95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.80-1.00] during internal validation. In the external cohort, the AUROC was 0.79 (95% CI 0.75-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: ML models combining ECG time-series features and clinical variables were able to predict non-arrhythmic mortality within three years after device implantation in a primary prevention population, with robust performance in an independent cohort.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: long-term results of the EFFORTLESS study.

AIMS: To report 5-year outcomes of EFFORTLESS registry patients with early generation subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) devices. METHODS AND RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier, trend and multivariable analyses were performed for mortality and late (years 2-5) complications, appropriate shock (AS) and inappropriate shock (IAS) rates. Nine hundred and eighty-four of 994 enrolled patients with diverse diagnoses (28% female, 48 ± 17 years, body mass index 27 ± 6 kg/m2, ejection fraction 43 ± 18%) underwent S-ICD implantation. Median follow-up was 5.1 years (interquartile range 4.7-5.5 years). All-cause mortality was 9.3% (95% confidence interval 7.2-11.3%) at 5 years; 703 patients remained in follow-up on study completion, 171 withdrew including 87 (8.8%) with device explanted, and 65 (6.6%) lost to follow-up. Of the explants, only 20 (2.0%) patients needed a transvenous device for pacing indications. First and final shock efficacy for discrete ventricular arrhythmias was consistent at 90% and 98%, respectively, with storm episode final shock efficacy at 95.2%. Time to therapy remained unaltered. Overall 1- and 5-year complication rates were 8.9% and 15.2%, respectively. Early complications did not predict later complications. There were no structural lead failures. Inappropriate shock rates at 1 and 5 years were 8.7% and 16.9%, respectively. Self-terminating inappropriately sensed episodes predicted late IAS. Predictors of late AS included self-terminating appropriately sensed episodes and earlier AS. CONCLUSION: In this diverse S-ICD registry population, spontaneous shock efficacy was consistently high over 5 years. Very few patients underwent S-ICD replacement with a transvenous device for pacing indications. Treated and self-terminating arrhythmic episodes predict future shock events, which should encourage more personalized device optimization.

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.

Predicted Need for Atrial and Ventricular Pacing Per Indication Group in Patients With Dual-Chamber Pacemakers.

BACKGROUND: Bradyarrhythmias are adequately treated with pacemakers. There are different pacing modes (single-chamber, dual-chamber, cardiac resynchronisation therapy [CRT] and conduction system pacing [CSP]) and a choice between leadless or transvenous pacemakers. The expected pacing need is important for determining optimal pacing mode and device type. This study aimed to evaluate atrial pacing (AP) and ventricular pacing (VP) percentages over time for the most common pacing indications. METHODS: Included patients were aged ≥18 years with a dual-chamber rate-modulated [DDD(R)] pacemaker implantation and ≥1 year of follow-up at a tertiary centre between January 2008 and January 2020. Baseline characteristics, AP and VP at yearly follow-up visits up to 6 years after implantation were retrieved from the medical records. RESULTS: A total of 381 patients were included. Primary pacing indications were incomplete atrioventricular block (AVB) in 85 (22%), complete AVB in 156 (41%) and sinus node dysfunction (SND) in 140 (37%) patients. Mean age at implantation was 71±14, 69±17 and 68±14 years, respectively (p=0.23). Median follow-up was 42 months (25-68 months). Overall, AP was highest in SND with median 37% (7%-75%) versus 7% (1%-26%) in incomplete AVB and 3% (1%-16%) in complete AVB (p<0.001); VP was highest in complete AVB with median 98% (43%-100%) versus 44% (7%-94%) in incomplete AVB and 3% (1%-14%) in SND (p<0.001). Ventricular pacing significantly increased over time in patients with incomplete AVB and SND (both p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the pathophysiology of different pacing indications, causing clear differences in pacing need and expected battery longevity. They may help guide optimal pacing mode and suitability for leadless or physiological pacing.

NL-EVDR: Netherlands-ExtraVascular Device Registry.

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy is an essential element in treating cardiac arrhythmias. Despite their benefits, conventional transvenous CIEDs are associated with a significant risk of mainly pocket- and lead-related complications. To overcome these complications, extravascular devices (EVDs), such as the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and intracardiac leadless pacemaker, have been developed. In the near future, several other innovative EVDs will become available. However, it is difficult to evaluate EVDs in large studies because of high costs, lack of long-term follow-up, imprecise data or selected patient populations. To improve evaluation of these technologies, real-world, large-scale, long-term data are of utmost importance. A Dutch registry-based study seems to be a unique possibility for this goal due to early involvement of Dutch hospitals in novel CIEDs and an existing quality control infrastructure, the Netherlands Heart Registration (NHR). Therefore, we will soon start the Netherlands-ExtraVascular Device Registry (NL-EVDR), a Dutch nationwide registry with long-term follow-up of EVDs. The NL-EVDR will be incorporated in NHR's device registry. Additional EVD-specific variables will be collected both retrospectively and prospectively. Hence, combining Dutch EVD data will provide highly relevant information on safety and efficacy. As a first step, a pilot project has started in selected centres in October 2022 to optimise data collection.

Primary Results From the Understanding Outcomes With the S-ICD in Primary Prevention Patients With Low Ejection Fraction (UNTOUCHED) Trial.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous (S) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is safe and effective for sudden cardiac death prevention. However, patients in previous S-ICD studies had fewer comorbidities, had less left ventricular dysfunction, and received more inappropriate shocks (IAS) than in typical transvenous ICD trials. The UNTOUCHED trial (Understanding Outcomes With the S-ICD in Primary Prevention Patients With Low Ejection Fraction) was designed to evaluate the IAS rate in a more typical, contemporary ICD patient population implanted with the S-ICD using standardized programming and enhanced discrimination algorithms. METHODS: Primary prevention patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and no pacing indications were included. Generation 2 or 3 S-ICD devices were implanted and programmed with rate-based therapy delivery for rates ≥250 beats per minute and morphology discrimination for rates ≥200 and <250 beats per minute. Patients were followed for 18 months. The primary end point was the IAS-free rate compared with a 91.6% performance goal, derived from the results for the ICD-only patients in the MADIT-RIT study (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Reduce Inappropriate Therapy). Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to evaluate event-free rates for IAS, all-cause shock, and complications. Multivariable proportional hazard analysis was performed to determine predictors of end points. RESULTS: S-ICD implant was attempted in 1116 patients, and 1111 patients were included in postimplant follow-up analysis. The cohort had a mean age of 55.8±12.4 years, 25.6% were women, 23.4% were Black, 53.5% had ischemic heart disease, 87.7% had symptomatic heart failure, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 26.4±5.8%. Eighteen-month freedom from IAS was 95.9% (lower confidence limit, 94.8%). Predictors of reduced incidence of IAS were implanting the most recent generation of device, using the 3-incision technique, no history of atrial fibrillation, and ischemic cause. The 18-month all-cause shock-free rate was 90.6% (lower confidence limit, 89.0%), meeting the prespecified performance goal of 85.8%. Conversion success rate for appropriate, discrete episodes was 98.4%. Complication-free rate at 18 months was 92.7%. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates high efficacy and safety with contemporary S-ICD devices and programming despite the relatively high incidence of comorbidities in comparison with earlier S-ICD trials. The inappropriate shock rate (3.1% at 1 year) is the lowest reported for the S-ICD and lower than many transvenous ICD studies using contemporary programming to reduce IAS. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02433379.

Complications related to elective generator replacement of the subcutaneous implantable defibrillator.

AIMS: To guarantee uninterrupted function of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD), the pulse generator needs to be surgically replaced before the battery is depleted. The risks related to this replacement substantially impact long-term outcome for S-ICD recipients, as the majority will undergo one or several of these procedures in their lifetime. We aim to describe the procedural characteristics of the replacement procedure and to provide an insight in the complications associated with these replacements. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this retrospective analysis, data from replacement procedures and follow-up visits were collected from all patients who underwent elective S-ICD generator replacement in our tertiary centre from June 2014 until November 2019. Original device position was assessed using the PRAETORIAN score. Complications were defined as those requiring surgical intervention, systemic antibiotic treatment, or device extraction. Seventy-two patients were included, with a median follow-up of 1.9 years (IQR 0.6-3.3 years) after replacement. Battery depletion occurred after 5.9 ± 0.7 years. The pulse generator was repositioned in patients with a PRAETORIAN score ≥90 to minimize the defibrillation threshold. Although there was an increase in impedance compared to the implant procedure, first shock conversion rate during defibrillation testing was 91.4% with a success rate of 100% after multiple attempts. Two patients developed a complication after, respectively, 9 and 21 months, resulting in a complication rate of 1.4% per year. CONCLUSION: With a median follow-up of 1.9 years, this study shows a low complication rate after S-ICD replacement, with a first shock conversion rate of 91.4%.

Development and external validation of prediction models to predict implantable cardioverter-defibrillator efficacy in primary prevention of sudden cardiac death.

AIMS: This study was performed to develop and externally validate prediction models for appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock and mortality to identify subgroups with insufficient benefit from ICD implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We recruited patients scheduled for primary prevention ICD implantation and reduced left ventricular function. Bootstrapping-based Cox proportional hazards and Fine and Gray competing risk models with likely candidate predictors were developed for all-cause mortality and appropriate ICD shock, respectively. Between 2014 and 2018, we included 1441 consecutive patients in the development and 1450 patients in the validation cohort. During a median follow-up of 2.4 (IQR 2.1-2.8) years, 109 (7.6%) patients received appropriate ICD shock and 193 (13.4%) died in the development cohort. During a median follow-up of 2.7 (IQR 2.0-3.4) years, 105 (7.2%) received appropriate ICD shock and 223 (15.4%) died in the validation cohort. Selected predictors of appropriate ICD shock were gender, NSVT, ACE/ARB use, atrial fibrillation history, Aldosterone-antagonist use, Digoxin use, eGFR, (N)OAC use, and peripheral vascular disease. Selected predictors of all-cause mortality were age, diuretic use, sodium, NT-pro-BNP, and ACE/ARB use. C-statistic was 0.61 and 0.60 at respectively internal and external validation for appropriate ICD shock and 0.74 at both internal and external validation for mortality. CONCLUSION: Although this cohort study was specifically designed to develop prediction models, risk stratification still remains challenging and no large group with insufficient benefit of ICD implantation was found. However, the prediction models have some clinical utility as we present several scenarios where ICD implantation might be postponed.

Real-world performance of the atrial fibrillation monitor in patients with a subcutaneous ICD.

INTRODUCTION: The third-generation subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) (EMBLEM™ A219, Boston Scientific) contains a new diagnostic tool to detect atrial fibrillation (AF) in S-ICD patients, without the use of an intracardiac lead. This is the first study to evaluate the performance of the S-ICD AF monitor (AFM). METHODS: The AFM algorithm analyzes a subcutaneous signal for the presence of AF, similar to the signals collected by implantable and wearable diagnostic devices. The AFM algorithm combines heart rate (HR) scatter analysis with an HR histogram. The algorithm was tested against publicly available electrocardiogram databases (simulated performance). Real-world performance of the algorithm was evaluated by using the S-ICD LATITUDE remote monitoring (RM) database. RESULTS: The simulated performance of the AFM algorithm resulted in a sensitivity of 95.0%, specificity of 100.0%, and positive predictive value (PPV) of 100.0%. To evaluate the real-world performance of the AFM, 7744 S-ICD devices were followed for up to 30 months by RM, whereof 99.5% had the AFM enabled. A total of 387 AF episodes were randomly chosen for adjudication, resulting in a PPV of 67.7%. The main cause of misclassification was atrial and ventricular ectopy. CONCLUSION: The AFM exhibited a very high sensitivity and specificity in a simulated setting, designed to maximize PPV in order to minimize the clinical burden of reviewing falsely detected AF events. The real-world performance of the AFM, enabled in 99.5% of S-ICD patients, is a PPV of 67.7%.