Benjamin A D'Souza1, Andrew E Epstein2, Fermin C Garcia1, Yuli Y Kim3, Sharad C Agarwal4, Peter H Belott5, Martin C Burke6, Angel R Leon7, John M Morgan8, Kristen K Patton9, Maully Shah10. 1. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Electronic address: andrew.epstein@uphs.upenn.edu. 3. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 4. Papworth Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 5. Sharp Grossmont Hospital, San Diego, California, USA. 6. University of Chicago Hospitals, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 7. Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 8. Spire Southampton Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom. 9. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 10. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study was conceived to determine the safety and efficacy of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). BACKGROUND: The S-ICD is a treatment option for patients with CHD in which a transvenous device is contraindicated due to anatomic considerations. However, efficacy in this group has not been determined. METHODS: A pooled analysis of 865 patients in the EFFORTLESS (Evaluation of Factors Affecting the Clinical Outcome and Cost-Effectiveness) registry (an international observational database) and a U.S. Investigational Device Exemption study were reviewed. RESULTS: Nineteen CHD patients versus 846 non-CHD patients with a median follow-up of 567 days and 639 days, respectively, were included. There were no deaths and no appropriate shocks for ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation in the CHD cohort, versus 26 deaths (3.1%, p = 0.42) and 111 appropriate shocks in 59 patients (7.1%) in the non-CHD cohort (p = 0.23). There were similar complication rates for the CHD versus non-CHD groups (10.5 vs. 9.6% [p = 0.89]), with inappropriate shocks for T-wave oversensing as the only complication in the CHD group (n = 2). The rate of inappropriate shocks was similar for both groups (10.5% vs. 10.9% [p = 0.96]). Successful defibrillation testing at 80J was comparable for the CHD versus non-CHD groups (100% vs. 98.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The overall analysis of the CHD cohort from the pooled data of the Investigational Device Exemption study and the EFFORTLESS registry shows that the S-ICD is a safe option in CHD patients deemed to be at high risk for sudden cardiac death who do not have pacing indications. Further research to accurately define sudden cardiac death risk in the diverse anatomic substrates of CHD patients is warranted.
OBJECTIVES: This study was conceived to determine the safety and efficacy of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). BACKGROUND: The S-ICD is a treatment option for patients with CHD in which a transvenous device is contraindicated due to anatomic considerations. However, efficacy in this group has not been determined. METHODS: A pooled analysis of 865 patients in the EFFORTLESS (Evaluation of Factors Affecting the Clinical Outcome and Cost-Effectiveness) registry (an international observational database) and a U.S. Investigational Device Exemption study were reviewed. RESULTS: Nineteen CHD patients versus 846 non-CHD patients with a median follow-up of 567 days and 639 days, respectively, were included. There were no deaths and no appropriate shocks for ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation in the CHD cohort, versus 26 deaths (3.1%, p = 0.42) and 111 appropriate shocks in 59 patients (7.1%) in the non-CHD cohort (p = 0.23). There were similar complication rates for the CHD versus non-CHD groups (10.5 vs. 9.6% [p = 0.89]), with inappropriate shocks for T-wave oversensing as the only complication in the CHD group (n = 2). The rate of inappropriate shocks was similar for both groups (10.5% vs. 10.9% [p = 0.96]). Successful defibrillation testing at 80J was comparable for the CHD versus non-CHD groups (100% vs. 98.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The overall analysis of the CHD cohort from the pooled data of the Investigational Device Exemption study and the EFFORTLESS registry shows that the S-ICD is a safe option in CHD patients deemed to be at high risk for sudden cardiac death who do not have pacing indications. Further research to accurately define sudden cardiac death risk in the diverse anatomic substrates of CHD patients is warranted.
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