Defibrillation threshold in elective subcutaneous implantable defibrillator generator replacements: Time to reduce the size of the pulse generator?

INTRODUCTION: The first step-down defibrillation studies in the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) described a defibrillation threshold (DFT) of 32.5 ± 17.0 J and 36.6 ± 19.8 J. Therefore, the default shock output of the S-ICD was set at 80 J. In de novo implants, the DFT is lower in optimally positioned S-ICDs. However, a retrospective analysis raised concerns about a high DFT in S-ICD replacements, possibly related to fibrosis. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to find the DFT in patients undergoing S-ICD generator replacement. METHODS: This prospective study enrolled patients who underwent S-ICD generator replacement with subsequent defibrillation testing. A pre-specified defibrillation testing protocol was used to determine the DFT, defined as the lowest shock output that effectively terminated the induced ventricular arrhythmia. RESULTS: A total of 45 patients were enrolled, 6.0 ± 2.1 years after initial implant. Mean DFT during replacement in the total cohort was 27.4 ± 14.3 J. In patients with a body mass index (BMI) 18.5-25 kg/m2 (N = 22, BMI 22.5 ± 1.6), median DFT was 20 J (IQR 17.5-30). In 18/22 patients, the DFT was ≤30 J and 5/22 patients were successfully defibrillated at 10 J. One patient with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy had a DFT of 65 J. In patients with a BMI >25 kg/m2 (N = 23, BMI 29.5 ± 4.2), median DFT was 30 J (IQR 20-40). In 15/23 patients, the DFT was ≤30 J and 4/23 patients had a successful defibrillation test at 10 J. CONCLUSIONS: This study eases concerns about a high DFT after S-ICD generator replacement. The majority of patients had a DFT ≤30 J, regardless of BMI, suggesting that the shock output of the S-ICD could be safely reduced.

Defibrillation testing during implantation of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: a necessary standard or becoming redundant?

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 S­ICD 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.

Comparison of complications and shocks in paediatric and young transvenous and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients.

BACKGROUND: Young implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients are prone to complications and inappropriate shocks (IAS). The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) may avoid lead-related complications. This study aims to describe the incidence and nature of device-related complications in young transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) and S­ICD patients. METHODS: Single-chamber TV-ICD and S­ICD patients up to and including the age of 25 years implanted between 2002 and 2015 were retrospectively analysed. Complications were defined as device-related complications requiring surgical intervention. IAS were defined as shocks for anything other than ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. Follow-up data were collected 5 years post-implantation. Kaplan-Meier estimates for complications at 5­year follow-up were calculated with a corresponding 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients (46 TV-ICD, 35 S-ICD) were included (median age 19.0 (IQR 16.0-23.0) and 16.5 (IQR 13.0-20.2) years respectively). Median follow-up was 60 and 40 months respectively. All-cause complication rate was 34% in the TV-ICD group and 25% in the S­ICD group (p = 0.64). TV-ICD patients had more lead complications: 23% (10-36%) versus 0% (p = 0.02). The rate of infections did not differ between TV-ICD and S­ICD: 2% (0-6%) versus 10% (0-21%) (p = 0.15). No systemic infections occurred in the S­ICD patients. The rates of IAS were similar, TV-ICD 22% (9-35%) versus S­ICD 14% (0-30%) (p = 0.40), as were those for appropriate shocks: 25% (11-39%) versus 27% (6-48%) (p = 0.92). CONCLUSION: The rates of all-cause complications in this cohort were equal, though the nature of the complications differed. S­ICD patients did not suffer lead failures or systemic infections. An era effect is present between the two groups.

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.