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.

Combined leadless pacemaker and subcutaneous implantable defibrillator therapy: feasibility, safety, and performance.

AIMS: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) and leadless pacemaker (LP) are evolving technologies that do not require intracardiac leads. However, interactions between these two devices are unexplored. We investigated the feasibility, safety, and performance of combined LP and S-ICD therapy, considering (i) simultaneous device-programmer communication, (ii) S-ICD rhythm discrimination during LP communication and pacing, and (iii) post-shock LP performance. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study consists of two parts. Animal experiments: Two sheep were implanted with both an S-ICD and LP (Nanostim, SJM), and the objectives above were tested. Human experience: Follow-up of one S-ICD patient with bilateral subclavian occlusion who received an LP and two LP (all Nanostim, SJM) patients (without S-ICD) who received electrical cardioversion (ECV) are presented. Animal experiments : Simultaneous device-programmer communication was successful, but LP-programmer communication telemetry was temporarily lost (2 ± 2 s) during ventricular fibrillation (VF) induction and 4/54 shocks. Leadless pacemaker communication and pacing did not interfere with S-ICD rhythm discrimination. Additionally, all VF episodes (n = 12/12), including during simultaneous LP pacing, were detected and treated by the S-ICD. Post-shock LP performance was unaltered, and no post-shock device resets or dislodgements were observed (24 S-ICD and 30 external shocks). Human experience : The S-ICD/LP patient showed adequate S-ICD sensing during intrinsic rhythm, nominal, and high-output LP pacing. Two LP patients (without S-ICD) received ECV during follow-up. No impact on performance or LP dislodgements were observed. CONCLUSION: Combined LP and S-ICD therapy appears feasible in all animal experiments (n = 2) and in one human subject. No interference in sensing and pacing during intrinsic and paced rhythm was noted in both animal and human subjects. However, induced arrhythmia testing was not performed in the patient. Defibrillation therapy did not seem to affect LP function. More data on safety and performance are needed.