Project description:BackgroundBrugada syndrome (BrS) is associated with sudden cardiac death (SCD). Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation is recommended, the long-term outcomes and follow-up data with regard to ICD complications have led to controversy.HypothesisIn the present study, we described the data assimilated in a total of 11 studies, analyzing the outcome in 747 BrS patients receiving ICD.MethodsData were performed and analyzed after a systematic review of literature compiled from a thorough database search (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Cinahl).ResultsThe mean age of patients receiving ICD was (43.1?±?13.4, 82.5% males, 46.6% spontaneous BrS type I). Around 15.3% of the patients were admitted due to SCD and 10.4% suffered from atrial arrhythmia. Appropriate shocks were documented in 18.1% of the patients over a mean follow-up period of 82.3 months (47.5-110.4). The following complications were recorded: lead failure and fracture (5.4%), lead perforation (0.7%), lead dislodgement (1.7%), infection (3.9%), pain (0.4%), subclavian vein thrombosis (0.3%), pericardial effusion (0.1%), endocarditis (0.1%), psychiatric problems (1.5%), pneumothorax (0.7%). Inappropriate shocks were documented in 18.1% of the patients. The management of inappropriate shocks was achieved by pulmonary vein isolation (0.5%), drug treatment with sotalol (1.3%) or sotalol with beta-blocker (0.3%) and hydroquinidine (0.1%).ConclusionsICD therapy in BrS is associated with relevant ICD-related complications including a substantial risk of inappropriate shocks more frequently in symptomatic BrS patients.
Project description:AimsLeft 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 resultsA 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).ConclusionsML 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.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) is an alternative to the transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Here, we report a rare case of refractoriness to an S-ICD after frequent therapies for ventricular fibrillation (VF) storms. CASE PRESENTATION:A 24-year-old man underwent a bout of syncope with vomiting and incontinence at home. He was brought to the emergency room and was witnessed to spontaneously go into VF successfully converted by external defibrillation. Previously, he was diagnosed with a type I Brugada electrocardiogram pattern by a pilsicainide administration test in another hospital. Although he had a family history of sudden cardiac death in 3 relatives, including his brother, he was followed closely without any therapies because he had never had an episode of syncope. He was implanted with an S-ICD without any trouble. Seven months later, frequent S-ICD shocks for VF storms occurred. His VF was controlled by using intravenous amiodarone, which was converted to an oral preparation. However, his VF recurred after another 2?months. The analysis of his S-ICD data revealed that 4 consecutive shock deliveries could not terminate his VF and the final shock delivered could fortunately terminate it because of a high defibrillation threshold test (DFT) due to an increasing shock impedance (64 to 90??). First, we performed an epicardial Brugada syndrome ablation and subsequently replaced and repositioned the S-ICD lead from a left to a right parasternal site. After the re-implantation of the S-ICD, the DFT test improved to within normal range. According to the pathological analysis, infiltration of inflammatory cells and extensive fibrosis were confirmed in the subcutaneous tissue around the shock lead and S-ICD body. CONCLUSION:Frequent S-ICD shocks for VF storms might cause various pathological changes around the device and lead to a high DFT.
Project description:IntroductionThe two-incision implantation technique of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) was introduced as an alternative to the standard three-incision approach by omitting the superior parasternal incision. Thereby, complications may be prevented. Short-term follow-up demonstrated the safety and efficacy of the two-incision technique. However, long-term results are lacking.MethodsThis retrospective study included patients implanted between February 2009 and June 2020. Patients were divided into a group of patients who were implanted with the standard three-incision technique and a group who were implanted with the two-incision technique. Outcomes were defibrillation impedance and efficacy and complications requiring intervention.ResultsA total of 268 patients were included (age 42.4 ± 16.6 years, 35.4% female, BMI 25.1 ± 4.5 kg/m2 ). Thirty-one patients underwent S-ICD implantation with the three-incision technique and 237 patients with the two-incision technique. First shock efficacy during defibrillation testing was 93% in the three-incision group versus 94% in the two-incision group (P = .69), and shock impedance was 85 versus 68 ohms (P = .04). First shock success was 75% versus 76% for spontaneous episodes (P = 1.00). Complication-free survival at 5-year follow-up in the three-incision group was estimated at 0.96 (95% CI 0.90-1.00) versus 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-1.00) in the two-incision group (P = .20) and for inappropriate shocks at 5-year 0.77 (95% CI 0.63-0.94) versus 0.83 (95% CI 0.77-0.89, P = .30), respectively.ConclusionFive-year follow-up in this S-ICD cohort showed similar complication rates and effectiveness of two-incision technique compared to the three-incision technique. This technique offers physicians a less invasive and more simplified implantation procedure for the S-ICD, with a better cosmetic result.
Project description:Since the publication of the SIMPLE and NORDIC trials, defibrillation testing (DFT) is rarely performed during routine implantation of transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). However, the results of these trials cannot be extrapolated to the later introduced subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) and a class I recommendation to perform DFT during the implantation of these devices remains in the current guidelines. Due to the high conversion success rate of DFT on one hand, and the risk of complications on the other, a significant number of physicians omit DFT in S‑ICD recipients. Several retrospective analyses have assessed the safety of the omission of DFT and report contradicting results and recommendations. It is known that implant position, as well as device factors and patient characteristics, influence defibrillation success. A better comprehension of these factors and their relationship could lead to more reliable and safer alternatives to DFT. An ongoing randomised clinical trial, which is expected to end in 2023, is the first study to implement a method that assesses implant position to identify patients who are likely to fail their DFT.
Project description:BackgroundAdult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients can benefit from a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD).ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess left- and right-sided S-ICD eligibility in ACHD patients, use machine learning to predict S-ICD eligibility in ACHD patients, and transform 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) to S-ICD 3-lead ECG, and vice versa.MethodsACHD outpatients (n = 101; age 42 ± 14 years; 52% female; 85% white; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 56% ± 9%) were enrolled in a prospective study. Supine and standing 12-lead ECG were recorded simultaneously with a right- and left-sided S-ICD 3-lead ECG. Peak-to-peak QRS and T amplitudes; RR, PR, QT, QTc, and QRS intervals; Tmax, and R/Tmax (31 predictor variables) were tested. Model selection, training, and testing were performed using supine ECG datasets. Validation was performed using standing ECG datasets and an out-of-sample non-ACHD population (n = 68; age 54 ± 16 years; 54% female; 94% white; LVEF 61% ± 8%).ResultsForty percent of participants were ineligible for S-ICD. Tetralogy of Fallot patients passed right-sided screening (57%) more often than left-sided screening (21%; McNemar χ2P = .025). Female participants had greater odds of eligibility (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 5.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-21.7; P = .008). Validation of the ridge models was satisfactory for standing left-sided (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve [ROC AUC] 0.687; 95% CI 0.582-0.791) and right-sided (ROC AUC 0.655; 95% CI 0.549-0.762) S-ICD eligibility prediction. Validation of transformation matrices showed satisfactory agreement (<0.1 mV difference).ConclusionNearly half of the contemporary ACHD population is ineligible for S-ICD. The odds of S-ICD eligibility are greater for female than for male ACHD patients. Machine learning prediction of S-ICD eligibility can be used for screening of S-ICD candidates.
Project description:The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) has been developed to avert risks associated with transvenous defibrillator leads. The technology is attractive for younger patients, such as those with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). However, there are limited data on S-ICD use in HCM.HCM patients identified at risk for sudden death were considered for S-ICD implantation. Patients were screened for potential oversensing by surface electrocardiography (ECG). At implant, defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing was performed at 65, 50, and 35 joules (J). Twenty-seven patients were considered for S-ICD implantation, and after screening, 23 (85%) remained eligible. The presence of a bundle branch block was associated with screening failure, whereas elevated body mass index (BMI) showed a trend toward association. One patient passed screening at rest, but failed with an ECG obtained after exercise. At implant, the S-ICD terminated ventricular fibrillation (VF) with a 65J shock in all 15 implanted patients and a 50J shock was successful in 12 of 15. A 35J shock terminated VF in 10 of 12 patients. DFT failure at 50 J was associated with a higher BMI. There were no appropriate shocks after a median follow-up of 17.5 (3-35) months, and 1 patient received an inappropriate shock attributable to a temporary reduction in QRS amplitude while bending forward, resulting in oversensing, despite successful screening.In a high-risk HCM cohort without a pacing indication referred for consideration of an ICD, the majority were eligible for S-ICD. The S-ICD is effective at recognizing and terminating VF at implant with a wide safety margin.
Project description:BackgroundReports on the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) cumulatively demonstrate a low rate of complications, but clinical experience with this technology is limited compared with transvenous devices.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to describe and analyze S-ICD complications reported to the Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database.MethodsWe reviewed all S-ICD events reported to the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience submitted over 24 months (from February 2016 through February 2018) through a prospective and standardized approach at a time when an estimated 15,000 S-ICDs were in service.ResultsAfter removing duplicate entries and nonclinical events (n = 493), 1604 events remained. A total of 542 instances of infection were reported with system removal in 414/542 (77.5%). Inappropriate shocks occurred in 550 patients, and 382 (69%) were attributed to oversensing; in response, 254 (56%), 147 (33%), and 80 (18%) patients underwent system reprogramming, removal, or revision, respectively. There were 15 deaths, and causes included defibrillation failure during follow-up (n = 2), ventricular fibrillation induced by the device (n = 4), device-device interaction resulting in undersensing (n = 1), procedure-related complications (n = 4), and uncertain etiology (n = 4). There were 137 reports of system migration, and in 57 (42%) of these, there were associated inappropriate shocks. System migration events were managed with a combination of system revision (69 [51%]), reprogramming (25 [18%]), and system removal (44 [32%]).ConclusionSeveral S-ICD complications have been reported that appear to be related to the ICD's design and function over time. A better understanding of these complications may help inform patient selection, implant technique, and postimplantation management.
Project description:Background Outcomes data in patients with cardiac amyloidosis after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation are limited. We compared outcomes of patients with ICDs implanted for cardiac amyloidosis versus nonischemic cardiomyopathies (NICMs) and evaluated factors associated with mortality among patients with cardiac amyloidosis. Methods and Results Using National Cardiovascular Data Registry's ICD Registry data between April 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015, we created a 1:5 propensity-matched cohort of patients implanted with ICDs with cardiac amyloidosis and NICM. We compared mortality between those with cardiac amyloidosis and matched patients with NICM using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models. We also evaluated risk factors associated with 1-year mortality in patients with cardiac amyloidosis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Among 472 patients with cardiac amyloidosis and 2360 patients with propensity-matched NICMs, 1-year mortality was significantly higher in patients with cardiac amyloidosis compared with patients with NICMs (26.9% versus 11.3%, P<0.001). After adjustment for covariates, cardiac amyloidosis was associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% CI, 1.56-2.08). In a multivariable analysis of patients with cardiac amyloidosis, several factors were significantly associated with mortality: syncope (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.22-2.59), ventricular tachycardia (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.15-2.38), cerebrovascular disease (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.28-3.23), diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.05-2.27), creatinine = 1.6 to 2.5 g/dL (HR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.32-3.02), and creatinine >2.5 (HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 2.72-6.93). Conclusions Mortality after ICD implantation is significantly higher in patients with cardiac amyloidosis than in patients with propensity-matched NICMs. Factors associated with death among patients with cardiac amyloidosis include prior syncope, ventricular tachycardia, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and impaired renal function.