PURPOSE: Since subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) introduction, the pre-implant screening based on a dedicated manual ECG tool (MST) was required to assure adequate sensing by the S-ICD. A novel automated screening tool (AST) has been recently developed. We assessed and compared the pass rate with AST and MST, and we measured the agreement between screening tools. METHODS: Three electrodes were positioned at locations mimicking the placement of the S-ICD, and ECG recordings were collected in the supine and standing postures at rest. The three sensing vectors were analyzed with the MST and the AST. Eligibility was defined by the presence of at least one or two appropriate vectors in both postures. RESULTS: A total of 235 patients with an indication to ICD and no need for permanent pacing were enrolled. At least one suitable vector was identified in 214 (91%) patients with MST and 221 (94%) patients with AST (p = 0.219). At least two vectors were appropriate in 162 (69%) patients with MST and 187 (80%) patients with AST (p = 0.008). Overall, out of 1587 ECG analyzed, 1035 (65%) qualifying leads were identified with MST and 1111 (70%) with AST (p = 0.004). The agreement between the results of MST and AST ECG analysis was moderate (Kappa = 0.570; standard error = 0.022; CI = 0.526-0.613). The results were consistent regardless of the underlying cardiomyopathy. The most frequent reason for screening failure with MST was a high-amplitude T-wave (31% of failures). With AST, 23% of recordings that failed with MST for high-amplitude T-wave were classified as acceptable. CONCLUSION: The AST is associated with higher pass rate than the standard MST. It seems more tolerant of high-amplitude T-waves. Consequently, the agreement between MST and AST findings was only moderate.
PURPOSE: Since subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) introduction, the pre-implant screening based on a dedicated manual ECG tool (MST) was required to assure adequate sensing by the S-ICD. A novel automated screening tool (AST) has been recently developed. We assessed and compared the pass rate with AST and MST, and we measured the agreement between screening tools. METHODS: Three electrodes were positioned at locations mimicking the placement of the S-ICD, and ECG recordings were collected in the supine and standing postures at rest. The three sensing vectors were analyzed with the MST and the AST. Eligibility was defined by the presence of at least one or two appropriate vectors in both postures. RESULTS: A total of 235 patients with an indication to ICD and no need for permanent pacing were enrolled. At least one suitable vector was identified in 214 (91%) patients with MST and 221 (94%) patients with AST (p = 0.219). At least two vectors were appropriate in 162 (69%) patients with MST and 187 (80%) patients with AST (p = 0.008). Overall, out of 1587 ECG analyzed, 1035 (65%) qualifying leads were identified with MST and 1111 (70%) with AST (p = 0.004). The agreement between the results of MST and AST ECG analysis was moderate (Kappa = 0.570; standard error = 0.022; CI = 0.526-0.613). The results were consistent regardless of the underlying cardiomyopathy. The most frequent reason for screening failure with MST was a high-amplitude T-wave (31% of failures). With AST, 23% of recordings that failed with MST for high-amplitude T-wave were classified as acceptable. CONCLUSION: The AST is associated with higher pass rate than the standard MST. It seems more tolerant of high-amplitude T-waves. Consequently, the agreement between MST and AST findings was only moderate.
Entities:
Keywords:
Implantable defibrillator; Screening; Subcutaneous; Sudden death
Authors: Silvia G Priori; Carina Blomström-Lundqvist; Andrea Mazzanti; Nico Blom; Martin Borggrefe; John Camm; Perry Mark Elliott; Donna Fitzsimons; Robert Hatala; Gerhard Hindricks; Paulus Kirchhof; Keld Kjeldsen; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Antonio Hernandez-Madrid; Nikolaos Nikolaou; Tone M Norekvål; Christian Spaulding; Dirk J Van Veldhuisen Journal: Europace Date: 2015-08-29 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Daniel A Randles; Nathaniel M Hawkins; Matthew Shaw; Ashish Y Patwala; Stephen J Pettit; David J Wright Journal: Europace Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Raul Weiss; Bradley P Knight; Michael R Gold; Angel R Leon; John M Herre; Margaret Hood; Mayer Rashtian; Mark Kremers; Ian Crozier; Kerry L Lee; Warren Smith; Martin C Burke Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-08-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Hideo Okamura; Christopher J McLeod; Christopher V DeSimone; Tracy L Webster; Crystal R Bonnichsen; Martha Grogan; Sabrina D Phillips; Heidi M Connolly; Naser M Ammash; Carole A Warnes; Paul A Friedman Journal: Circ J Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 2.993
Authors: Christopher A Groh; Shishir Sharma; Daniel J Pelchovitz; Prashant D Bhave; John Rhyner; Nishant Verma; Rishi Arora; Alexandru B Chicos; Susan S Kim; Albert C Lin; Rod S Passman; Bradley P Knight Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2014-04-19 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: David G Wilson; Mehmood Zeb; Gruschen Veldtman; Borislav D Dimitrov; John M Morgan Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Louise R A Olde Nordkamp; Joppe L F Warnaars; Kirsten M Kooiman; Joris R de Groot; Boudewijn R A M Rosenmöller; Arthur A M Wilde; Reinoud E Knops Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2014-01-07
Authors: Luca Santini; Augusto Pappalardo; Valentina Schirripa; Nicola Danisi; Giovanni B Forleo; Fabrizio Ammirati Journal: HeartRhythm Case Rep Date: 2017-04-26
Authors: Toshimasa Okabe; Adrianne Miller; Tanner Koppert; Rafael Cavalcanti; Diego Alcivar-Franco; Jemina Osei; Omar Kahaly; Muhammad R Afzal; Jaret Tyler; Steven J Kalbfleisch; Raul Weiss; Mahmoud Houmsse; Ralph S Augostini; Emile G Daoud; Michael J Andritsos; Sujatha Bhandary; Galina Dimitrova; Kasey Fiorini; Hamdy Elsayed-Awad; Antolin Flores; Leonid Gorelik; Manoj H Iyer; Samiya Saklayen; Erica Stein; Katja Turner; William Perez; John D Hummel; Michael K Essandoh Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2019-12-07 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Mohamed ElRefai; Mohamed Abouelasaad; Benedict M Wiles; Anthony J Dunn; Stefano Coniglio; Alain B Zemkoho; Paul R Roberts Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2022-05-13 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Christoph Schukro; David Santer; Günther Prenner; Markus Stühlinger; Martin Martinek; Alexander Teubl; Deddo Moertl; Stefan Schwarz; Michael Nürnberg; Lukas Fiedler; Robert Hatala; Cesar Khazen Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2020-08-14 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: M L Narducci; R Scacciavillani; G Pinnacchio; G Bencardino; F Perna; G Comerci; M Campisi; I Ceccarelli; C Pavone; F Spera; A Bisignani; F Crea; G Pelargonio Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc Date: 2021-07-20