Isolated subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator generator displacement causing inappropriate shocks despite preserved lead tip and coil position: a case report.

Background: Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) are increasingly used in patients without a pacing indication, and may reduce venous complications, endocarditis and extraction morbidity. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator displacements may be less obvious than their transvenous counterparts. Case summary: A 59-year-old man was found to have dilated cardiomyopathy associated with heavy alcohol intake following investigation for a stroke. Despite 2 years of alcohol cessation and optimal drug therapy, his ejection fraction remained severely impaired, and he received an S-ICD using the manufacturer recommended screening and implant method, and by an experienced operator. Ten months later, inappropriate shocks were delivered despite optimal programming. Device displacement was demonstrated by lateral chest radiography on the second instance of inappropriate therapy. On the first admission, a lateral film was not performed, and simple device programming was undertaken which failed to prevent the second occurrence. The patient requested an explant; as ventricular function had improved following initiation of sacubutril/valsartan, the clinical team opted to remove the device. Discussion: Careful inspection of lateral chest films and review of device indication are needed to reduce the risk of inappropriate shocks. This is the first description of inappropriate device activity following lone generator displacement-lead displacement is well described.

Iatrogenic cardiac perforation due to pacemaker and defibrillator leads: a contemporary multicentre experience.

AIMS: To determine the incidence, clinical features, management, and outcomes of pacemaker (PM) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead cardiac perforation. Cardiac perforations due to PM and ICD leads are rare but serious complications. Clinical features vary widely and may cause diagnostic delay. Management strategies are non-guideline based due to paucity of data. METHODS AND RESULTS: A multicentre retrospective series including 3 UK cardiac tertiary centres from 2016 to 2020. Patient, device, and lead characteristics were obtained including 6-month outcomes. Seventy cases of perforation were identified from 10 631 procedures; perforation rate was 0.50% for local implants. Thirty-nine (56%) patients were female, mean ( ± standard deviation) age 74 ( ± 13.8) years. Left ventricular ejection fraction 51 ( ± 13.2) %. Median time to diagnosis was 9 (range: 0-989) days. Computed tomography (CT) diagnosed perforation with 97% sensitivity. Lead parameter abnormalities were present in 86% (whole cohort) and 98.6% for perforations diagnosed >24 h. Chest pain was the commonest symptom, present in 46%. The management strategy was percutaneous in 98.6% with complete procedural success in 98.6%. Pericardial effusion with tamponade was present in 17% and was associated with significantly increased mortality and major complications. Anticoagulation status was associated with tamponade by multivariate analysis (odds ratio 21.7, 95% confidence interval: 1.7-275.5, P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Perforation was rare (0.50%) and managed successfully by a percutaneous strategy with good outcomes. Tamponade was associated with increased mortality and major complications. Anticoagulation status was an independent predictor of tamponade. Case complexity is highly variable and requires skilled operators with a multi-disciplinary approach to achieve good outcomes.