BACKGROUND: Information regarding suitability for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implant in tetralogy of Fallot (ToF) population is scarce and needs to be further explored. THE AIMS OF OUR STUDY WERE: (1) to determine the proportion of patients with ToF eligible for S-ICD, (2) to identify the optimal sensing vector in ToF patients, (3) to test specifically the eligibility for S-ICD with right-sided screening, and (4) to compare with the proportion of eligible patients in a nonselected ICD population. METHODS: We recruited 60 consecutive patients with ToF and 40 consecutive nonselected patients. Conventional electrocardiographic screening was performed as usual. Right-sided alternative screening was studied by positioning the left arm and right arm electrodes 1 cm right lateral to the xiphoid midline. The Boston Scientific electrocardiogram (ECG) screening tool was utilized. RESULTS: We found a higher proportion of patients with right-sided positive screening in comparison with standard screening (77 ± 0.4% vs. 67 ± 0.4%; P < 0.0001) and a trend to higher number of appropriate leads in right-sided screening (1.3 ± 1 vs. 1.1 ± 1 ms; P = 0.07). Patients who failed the screening had a longer QRS duration and longer QT interval. Standard and right-sided screening showed a higher percent of positive patients in the control group compared to ToF patients (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Right-sided screening was associated with a significant 10% increase in S-ICD eligibility in ToF patients. When comparing with an acquired cardiomyopathies group, ToF showed a lower eligibility for S-ICD. The most appropriate ECG vector was the alternate vector in contrast to what is observed in the general population.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Information regarding suitability for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implant in tetralogy of Fallot (ToF) population is scarce and needs to be further explored. THE AIMS OF OUR STUDY WERE: (1) to determine the proportion of patients with ToF eligible for S-ICD, (2) to identify the optimal sensing vector in ToF patients, (3) to test specifically the eligibility for S-ICD with right-sided screening, and (4) to compare with the proportion of eligible patients in a nonselected ICD population. METHODS: We recruited 60 consecutive patients with ToF and 40 consecutive nonselected patients. Conventional electrocardiographic screening was performed as usual. Right-sided alternative screening was studied by positioning the left arm and right arm electrodes 1 cm right lateral to the xiphoid midline. The Boston Scientific electrocardiogram (ECG) screening tool was utilized. RESULTS: We found a higher proportion of patients with right-sided positive screening in comparison with standard screening (77 ± 0.4% vs. 67 ± 0.4%; P < 0.0001) and a trend to higher number of appropriate leads in right-sided screening (1.3 ± 1 vs. 1.1 ± 1 ms; P = 0.07). Patients who failed the screening had a longer QRS duration and longer QT interval. Standard and right-sided screening showed a higher percent of positive patients in the control group compared to ToF patients (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Right-sided screening was associated with a significant 10% increase in S-ICD eligibility in ToF patients. When comparing with an acquired cardiomyopathies group, ToF showed a lower eligibility for S-ICD. The most appropriate ECG vector was the alternate vector in contrast to what is observed in the general population.
Authors: Linda Wang; Neeraj Javadekar; Ananya Rajagopalan; Nichole M Rogovoy; Kazi T Haq; Craig S Broberg; Larisa G Tereshchenko Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Pau Alonso; Joaquín Osca; Joaquín Rueda; Oscar Cano; Pedro Pimenta; Ana Andres; María José Sancho; Luis Martinez Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 1.468