A sustained ventricular tachycardia overlooked by subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator but recognized by co-implanted transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Goto K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7300333 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A sustained ventricular tachycardia overlooked by subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator but recognized by co-implanted transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator.
Goto Kentaro K Ono Yuichi Y Osaka Yuki Y Kurihara Ken K Otomo Kenichiro K Sasano Tetsuo T
HeartRhythm case reports 20200308 6
Similar Datasets
Project description:AimsArrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) patients develop ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) responsive to anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP). However, VA episodes have not been characterized in accordance with the device therapy, and with the emergence of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD), the appropriate device prescription in ARVC remains unclear. Study aim was to characterize VA events in ARVC patients during follow-up in accordance with device therapy and elicit if certain parameters are predictive of specific VA events.Methods and resultsThis was a retrospective single-centre study utilizing prospectively collated registry data of ARVC patients with ICDs. Forty-six patients were included [54.0 ± 12.1 years old and 20 (43.5%) secondary prevention devices]. During a follow-up of 12.1 ± 6.9 years, 31 (67.4%) patients had VA events [n = 2, 6.5% ventricular fibrillation (VF), n = 14], 45.2% VT falling in VF zone resulting in ICD shock(s), n = 10, 32.3% VT resulting in ATP, and n = 5, 16.1% patients had both VT resulting in ATP and ICD shock(s). Lead failure rates were high (11/46, 23.9%). ATP was successful in 34.5% of patients. Severely impaired right ventricular (RV) function was an independent predictor of VT resulting in ATP (hazard ratio 16.80, 95% confidence interval 3.74-75.2; P < 0.001) with a high predictive accuracy (area under the curve 0.88, 95%CI 0.76-1.00; P < 0.001).ConclusionVA event rates are high in ARVC patients with a majority having VT falling in the VF zone resulting in ICD shock(s). S-ICDs could be of benefit in most patients with ARVC with the absence of severely impaired RV function which has the potential to avoid consequences of the high burden of lead failure.
| S-EPMC10202497 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11242457 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Methods17 physicians, experienced in transvenous lead removal, performed a lead extraction manoeuvre of an ICD lead on a torso phantom. They were advised to stop traction only when further traction would be considered as harmful to the patient or when--based on their experience--a change in the extraction strategy was indicated. Traction forces were recorded with a digital precision gauge.ResultsMedian traction forces on the endocardium were 10.9 N (range from 3.0 N to 24.7 N and interquartile range from 7.9 to 15.3). Forces applied to the proximal end were estimated to be 10% higher than those measured at the tip of the lead due to a friction loss.ConclusionA traction force of around 11 N is typically exerted during standard transvenous extraction of ICD leads. A traction threshold for a safe procedure derived from a pool of experienced extractionists may be helpful for the development of required adequate simulator trainings.
| S-EPMC4055293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The difference between subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) and transvenous ICDs (TV-ICDs) concerns a whole extra thoracic implantation, including a defibrillator coil and pulse generator, without endovascular components. The improved safety profile has allowed the S-ICD to be rapidly taken up, especially among younger patients. Reports of its role in different cardiac diseases at high risk of SCD such as hypertrophic and arrhythmic cardiomyopathies, as well as channelopathies, is increasing. S-ICDs show comparable efficacy, reliability, and safety outcomes compared to TV-ICD. However, some technical issues (i.e., the inability to perform anti-bradycardia pacing) strongly limit the employment of S-ICDs. Therefore, it still remains only an alternative to the traditional ICD thus far. This review aims to provide a contemporary overview of the role of S-ICDs compared to TV-ICDs in clinical practice, including technical aspects regarding device manufacture and implantation techniques. Newer outlooks and future perspectives of S-ICDs are also brought up to date.
| S-EPMC10455445 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundYoung 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 S‑ICD patients.MethodsSingle-chamber TV-ICD and S‑ICD 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 5‑year follow-up were calculated with a corresponding 95% confidence interval.ResultsEighty-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 S‑ICD 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 S‑ICD: 2% (0-6%) versus 10% (0-21%) (p = 0.15). No systemic infections occurred in the S‑ICD patients. The rates of IAS were similar, TV-ICD 22% (9-35%) versus S‑ICD 14% (0-30%) (p = 0.40), as were those for appropriate shocks: 25% (11-39%) versus 27% (6-48%) (p = 0.92).ConclusionThe rates of all-cause complications in this cohort were equal, though the nature of the complications differed. S‑ICD patients did not suffer lead failures or systemic infections. An era effect is present between the two groups.
| S-EPMC6288033 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) was developed to overcome the risk of lead-related complications associated with the transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD). In contrast to the TV-ICD, the S-ICD is a completely extrathoracic device. Subsequently, complications differ between these 2 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, which might impact patient perceptions of the therapies. This prespecified secondary analysis of the PRAETORIAN trial evaluates differences in quality of life.MethodsThe PRAETORIAN trial (A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Subcutaneous and Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy) randomized patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator indication, without the need for pacing to S-ICD or TV-ICD therapy. Two questionnaires were collected at baseline, discharge, 12 months, and 30 months. The Duke Activity Status Index measures cardiac-specific physical functioning, and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey measures physical and mental well-being, with the subscales bodily pain and mental health being of interest in this analysis. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare study arms, and a mixed model was used to describe the questionnaire outcomes over time.ResultsPatients were randomized to S-ICD (n=426) and TV-ICD (n=423). In the S-ICD group, 20% were women versus 19% in the TV-ICD group. The median age was 63 (interquartile range, 54-69) years in the S-ICD group versus 64 (interquartile range, 56-69) years in the TV-ICD group. There were no significant differences in the Duke Activity Status Index and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey subscales for bodily pain and mental health between the groups at any time point. Patients with a shock in the last 90 days had significantly lower scores for social functioning (P=0.008) and role limitations due to emotional problems (P=0.001) than patients without a shock, but this effect did not differ between treatment arms.ConclusionsIn a large randomized cohort of patients with an S-ICD or TV-ICD, no difference in overall quality of life was observed. However, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks resulted in a reduction in quality of life, regardless of the device type or appropriateness.RegistrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01296022.
| S-EPMC11575910 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients can benefit from a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD).ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess left- and right-sided S-ICD eligibility in ACHD patients, use machine learning to predict S-ICD eligibility in ACHD patients, and transform 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) to S-ICD 3-lead ECG, and vice versa.MethodsACHD outpatients (n = 101; age 42 ± 14 years; 52% female; 85% white; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 56% ± 9%) were enrolled in a prospective study. Supine and standing 12-lead ECG were recorded simultaneously with a right- and left-sided S-ICD 3-lead ECG. Peak-to-peak QRS and T amplitudes; RR, PR, QT, QTc, and QRS intervals; Tmax, and R/Tmax (31 predictor variables) were tested. Model selection, training, and testing were performed using supine ECG datasets. Validation was performed using standing ECG datasets and an out-of-sample non-ACHD population (n = 68; age 54 ± 16 years; 54% female; 94% white; LVEF 61% ± 8%).ResultsForty percent of participants were ineligible for S-ICD. Tetralogy of Fallot patients passed right-sided screening (57%) more often than left-sided screening (21%; McNemar χ2P = .025). Female participants had greater odds of eligibility (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 5.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-21.7; P = .008). Validation of the ridge models was satisfactory for standing left-sided (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve [ROC AUC] 0.687; 95% CI 0.582-0.791) and right-sided (ROC AUC 0.655; 95% CI 0.549-0.762) S-ICD eligibility prediction. Validation of transformation matrices showed satisfactory agreement (<0.1 mV difference).ConclusionNearly half of the contemporary ACHD population is ineligible for S-ICD. The odds of S-ICD eligibility are greater for female than for male ACHD patients. Machine learning prediction of S-ICD eligibility can be used for screening of S-ICD candidates.
| S-EPMC7197388 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInfection remains a major complication of cardiac implantable electronic devices and can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Implantable devices that avoid transvenous leads, such as the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD), can reduce the risk of serious infection-related complications, such as bloodstream infection and infective endocarditis. While the 2017 AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines include recommendations for S-ICD use for patients at high risk of infection, currently, there are no clinical trial data that address best practices for the prevention of S-ICD infections. Therefore, an expert panel was convened to develop a consensus on these topics.MethodsAn expert process mapping methodology was used to achieve consensus on the appropriate steps to minimize or prevent S-ICD infections. Two face-to-face meetings of high-volume S-ICD implanters and an infectious diseases specialist, with expertise in cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections, were conducted to develop consensus on useful strategies pre-, peri-, and postimplant to reduce S-ICD infection risk.ResultsExpert panel consensus on recommended steps for patient preparation, S-ICD implantation, and postoperative management was developed to provide guidance in individual patient management.ConclusionAchieving expert panel consensus by process mapping methodology for S-ICD infection prevention was attainable, and the results should be helpful to clinicians in adopting interventions to minimize risks of S-ICD infection.
| S-EPMC9544305 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite the widespread use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in clinical practice, concerns exist regarding ICD lead durability. The performance of specific lead designs and factors determining this in large populations need clarification.Methods and resultsThe Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Collaboration databases were searched for studies including ≥2 of the most commonly implanted leads. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used. Seventeen studies were selected, including a total of 49 871 patients-5538 implanted with Durata (St. Jude Medical Inc), 10 605 with Endotak Reliance (Boston Scientific), 16 119 with Sprint Quattro (Medtronic Corp), 11 709 with Sprint Fidelis (Medtronic Corp), and 5900 with Riata (St. Jude Medical Inc)-with follow-up of 136 509 lead-years. Although the Durata lead presented a numerically higher rate, no statistically significant differences in the mean incidence of lead failure (0.29%-0.45% per year) were observed in comparison of the 3 nonrecalled leads. A higher event rate was documented with the Riata (1.0% per-year increase) and Sprint Fidelis (>2.0% per-year increase) leads compared with nonrecalled leads. An indication of increased incidence of Durata lead failure versus Sprint Quattro and Endotak Reliance leads was observed in 1 of 3 included studies, allowing for comparison of purely electrical lead failure, but this requires further evaluation.ConclusionsEndotak Reliance (8F), Sprint Quattro (8F), and Durata (7F) leads displayed low annual incidence of failure; however, long-term follow-up data are still scarce. More data are needed to clarify the performance and safety of the Durata lead.
| S-EPMC4845221 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) has been developed to avert risks associated with transvenous defibrillator leads. The technology is attractive for younger patients, such as those with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). However, there are limited data on S-ICD use in HCM.HCM patients identified at risk for sudden death were considered for S-ICD implantation. Patients were screened for potential oversensing by surface electrocardiography (ECG). At implant, defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing was performed at 65, 50, and 35 joules (J). Twenty-seven patients were considered for S-ICD implantation, and after screening, 23 (85%) remained eligible. The presence of a bundle branch block was associated with screening failure, whereas elevated body mass index (BMI) showed a trend toward association. One patient passed screening at rest, but failed with an ECG obtained after exercise. At implant, the S-ICD terminated ventricular fibrillation (VF) with a 65J shock in all 15 implanted patients and a 50J shock was successful in 12 of 15. A 35J shock terminated VF in 10 of 12 patients. DFT failure at 50 J was associated with a higher BMI. There were no appropriate shocks after a median follow-up of 17.5 (3-35) months, and 1 patient received an inappropriate shock attributable to a temporary reduction in QRS amplitude while bending forward, resulting in oversensing, despite successful screening.In a high-risk HCM cohort without a pacing indication referred for consideration of an ICD, the majority were eligible for S-ICD. The S-ICD is effective at recognizing and terminating VF at implant with a wide safety margin.
| S-EPMC4802466 | biostudies-other