Pier D Lambiase1, Michael R Gold2, Margaret Hood3, Lucas Boersma4, Dominic A M J Theuns5, Martin C Burke6, Raul Weiss7, Andrea M Russo8, Stefan Kääb9, Bradley P Knight10. 1. Barts Heart Centre & UCL, London, UK. Electronic address: d.lambiase@ucl.ac.uk. 2. Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. 3. Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. 4. St Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwegein, Netherlands. 5. Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 6. Heart Rhythm Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 7. Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 8. Cooper University Hospital, Camden, New Jersey. 9. Grosshadern, University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 10. Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is a potential alternative to transvenous systems in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) where lead complications are a significant issue. OBJECTIVES: To compare the S-ICD efficacy of defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing, arrhythmia therapy, and complications in HCM versus non-HCM patients. METHODS: Outcomes of patients with HCM implanted with S-ICD were compared to non-HCM S-ICD recipients using pooled data from a total of 872 subjects enrolled in the EFFORTLESS Registry and US IDE study. RESULTS: The cohort included 99 HCM (75% male) and 773 non-HCM (72% male) patients with a median follow-up of 637 days. The HCM cohort was younger and more likely to receive a primary-prevention S-ICD (88.5% vs 67.5%, P < .0001). During implant testing, successful defibrillation at ≤80 J was achieved in 98.9% of HCM and 98.5% of non-HCM patients. One year postoperative complication-free rates were similar: 92.7% in HCM (with no lead complications) versus 89.5% in non-HCM. There were 3 appropriate shocks for ventricular tachycardia in 3 HCM patients that were all converted by the first shock. Overall final shock conversion efficacy was 100% in HCM versus 98% in non-HCM (P = ns). Inappropriate shocks occurred in 12.5% of HCM patients and 10.3% of non-HCM patients (P = ns), being reduced by 47% using dual-zone programming. CONCLUSION: These initial data indicate the S-ICD is safe and effective in patients with HCM who are at high risk of ventricular arrhythmias and pass preimplantation electrocardiogram screening. Inappropriate shocks were mainly due to T-wave oversensing, but there were no lead complications requiring reintervention.
BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is a potential alternative to transvenous systems in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) where lead complications are a significant issue. OBJECTIVES: To compare the S-ICD efficacy of defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing, arrhythmia therapy, and complications in HCM versus non-HCM patients. METHODS: Outcomes of patients with HCM implanted with S-ICD were compared to non-HCM S-ICD recipients using pooled data from a total of 872 subjects enrolled in the EFFORTLESS Registry and US IDE study. RESULTS: The cohort included 99 HCM (75% male) and 773 non-HCM (72% male) patients with a median follow-up of 637 days. The HCM cohort was younger and more likely to receive a primary-prevention S-ICD (88.5% vs 67.5%, P < .0001). During implant testing, successful defibrillation at ≤80 J was achieved in 98.9% of HCM and 98.5% of non-HCM patients. One year postoperative complication-free rates were similar: 92.7% in HCM (with no lead complications) versus 89.5% in non-HCM. There were 3 appropriate shocks for ventricular tachycardia in 3 HCM patients that were all converted by the first shock. Overall final shock conversion efficacy was 100% in HCM versus 98% in non-HCM (P = ns). Inappropriate shocks occurred in 12.5% of HCM patients and 10.3% of non-HCM patients (P = ns), being reduced by 47% using dual-zone programming. CONCLUSION: These initial data indicate the S-ICD is safe and effective in patients with HCM who are at high risk of ventricular arrhythmias and pass preimplantation electrocardiogram screening. Inappropriate shocks were mainly due to T-wave oversensing, but there were no lead complications requiring reintervention.
Authors: Nelson Wang; Ashleigh Xie; Richard Tjahjono; David H Tian; Steven Phan; Tristan D Yan; Pietro Bajona; Kevin Phan Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2017-07
Authors: Vincent C Thomas; Mark Peterson; Martin McDaniel; Humberto Restrepo; Abraham Rothman; Amit Jain Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Milena Leo; Alexander J Sharp; Andre Briosa E Gala; Michael T B Pope; Timothy R Betts Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 1.759
Authors: Babak Nazer; Zack Dale; Gianmarco Carrassa; Nosheen Reza; Tuna Ustunkaya; Nikolaos Papoutsidakis; Andrew Gray; Stacey J Howell; Miriam R Elman; Paolo Pieragnoli; Giuseppe Ricciardi; Daniel Jacoby; David S Frankel; Anjali Owens; Iacopo Olivotto; Stephen B Heitner Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 6.343