Search

Importance: The emergence of novel programming guidelines that reduce premature and inappropriate therapies along with the availability of new implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) technologies lacking traditional endocardial antitachycardia pacing (ATP) capabilities requires the reevaluation of ATP as a first strategy in terminating fast ventricular tachycardias (VTs) in primary prevention ICD recipients., Objective: To assess the role of ATP in terminating fast VTs in primary prevention ICD recipients with contemporary programming., Design, Setting, and Participants: This global, prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial had an equivalence design with a relative margin of 35%. Superiority tests were performed at interim analyses and the final analysis if equivalence was not proven. Patients were enrolled between September 2016 and April 2021 at 134 sites in 8 countries, with the last date of follow-up on July 6, 2023. Patients were required to have an indication for a primary prevention ICD, including left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 35%., Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive ATP plus shock vs shock only., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was time to first all-cause shock. Secondary end points included time to first appropriate shock, time to first inappropriate shock, all-cause mortality, and the composite of time to first all-cause shock plus all-cause mortality., Results: A total of 2595 patients were randomized (mean age, 63.9 years; 22.4% were females). At a mean follow-up of 38 months, first all-cause shock occurred in 129 participants in the ATP plus shock group and 178 participants in the shock only group. The hazard ratio (HR) for the primary end point was 0.72 (95.9% CI, 0.57-0.92), with P = .005 for superiority of the ATP plus shock group over the shock only group. During follow-up in an intention-to-treat analysis, the total shock burden per 100 patient-years was not statistically different, at 12.3 and 14.9, respectively (P = .70)., Conclusions and Relevance: The use of a single burst of ATP prior to shock in primary prevention ICD recipients with modern ICD detection programming prolonged the time to first all-cause ICD shock., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02923726.

Aims: Comparison of outcomes between subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD and TV-ICD) therapy is hampered by varying patient characteristics and complication definitions. The aim of this analysis is to compare clinical outcomes of S-ICD and TV-ICD therapy in a matched cohort., Methods and Results: Patients implanted with de novo implantable cardioverter-defibrillators without need for pacing were selected from two studies: SIMPLE (n = 1091 single and n = 553 dual chamber TV-ICDs) and EFFORTLESS (n = 798 S-ICDs). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients were 1:1 matched on propensity score to TV-ICD patients. Propensity scores were calculated using 15 baseline characteristics including diagnosis. The Kaplan-Meier estimates for complications requiring invasive intervention, appropriate shocks, and inappropriate shocks were calculated at 3 years follow-up. The primary analysis yielded 391 patients pairs with balanced baseline characteristics, with mean age 55 ± 14 years, 49% ischaemic cardiomyopathy, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 40%, 71% primary prevention, and 89% of TV-ICDs were single chamber. Follow-up was mean 2.9 years in the S-ICD arm vs. 3.3 in the TV-ICD arm. All-cause complications occurred in 9.0% of S-ICD vs. 6.5% of TV-ICD patients, P = 0.29. Appropriate shocks occurred in 9.9% of S-ICD vs. 13.8% in TV-ICD patients, P = 0.03 and inappropriate shocks in 11.9% in S-ICD vs. 8.9% in TV-ICD patients (P = 0.07). Total shock burden (20 vs. 31, P = 0.05) and appropriate shock burden per 100 patients years (9 vs. 18, P = 0.02) were lower for S-ICD patients, while inappropriate shock burden was equal (11 vs. 13, P = 0.56)., Conclusion: The earliest experience of the S-ICD demonstrates similar outcomes as contemporary TV-ICD therapy in a matched comparison with predominately single-chamber devices at 3 years follow-up.

Background: The transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead is the most common source of complications in a traditional ICD system. This investigation aims to determine the incidence, predictors, and costs associated with these complications using a large insurance database., Methods and Results: Data from the OptumLabs™ Data Warehouse, which include diagnosis, physician and procedure codes, and claims from patient hospitalizations, were analyzed. Patients with a de novo ICD or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implanted from January 1, 2003, through June 30, 2015, were included; those who did not have continuous coverage beginning 1 year before implantation were excluded, resulting in 40 837 patients followed up over an average of 2.3±2.1 years. Patients were followed up until they had the procedure or their last active date in the database. Of 20 580 device procedures, 2165 (5.3%) and 771 (1.9%) had mechanical and infectious complications, respectively. The 5-year rate of freedom from mechanical complication was 92.0% and 89.3% for ICDs and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators, respectively. Infectious complications were more likely in patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, and renal disease, and the risk increased with subsequent device procedures. Younger age, female sex, lack of comorbidities, and implantations between 2003 and 2008 were associated with more mechanical complications., Conclusions: Incidence of mechanical and infectious complications of transvenous ICD leads over long-term follow-up is much higher in the real world than in clinical studies. In our study cohort, 1 of 4 transvenous ICD leads had mechanical complications when followed up to 10 years. The high rate of reintervention leads to additional complications., (© 2018 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.)

Aims: Patients have increasing comorbidities and competing causes of death with advancing age, raising questions about the effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) in older age. We therefore investigated the effect of patients' age at initial device implantation on all-cause mortality and on the risk of ICD shocks in single-chamber (V-ICD), dual-chamber (D-ICD), and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) recipients., Methods and Results: We reviewed de-identified records of 67 128 ICD recipients enrolled in the Boston Scientific ALTITUDE database of remote monitored patients [V-ICD (n = 11 422), D-ICD (n = 23 974), and CRT-D (n = 31 732)]. Over a mean follow-up of 2.3 ± 1.4 years, patients in all ICD groups had increased all-cause mortality but decreased risk of defibrillator shocks and/or anti-tachycardia pacing per 10 year increase in age. Compared with the youngest age group (<50 years), patients in the oldest age group (≥80 years) had a 6.8-fold, 5.9-fold, and 3.4-fold increase in all-cause mortality (P < 0.001 for all comparisons) and a 31, 45, and 53% decrease in the risk of ICD shock (P ≤ 0.002 for all comparisons) for the V-ICD, D-ICD, and CRT-D groups, respectively., Conclusion: Older recipients of standard and CRT defibrillators have higher mortality but fewer ICD shocks and/or therapies compared with younger patients. These data highly suggest less benefit of ICD therapy with increasing age, presumably because of competing risks of non-arrhythmic mortality. The role of defibrillator therapy in older patients may need to be evaluated with randomized controlled trials., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2016. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) was introduced to overcome complications related to transvenous leads. Adoption of the S-ICD requires implanters to learn a new implantation technique. The aim of this study was to assess the learning curve for S-ICD implanters with respect to implant-related complications, procedure time, and inappropriate shocks (IASs)., Methods and Results: In a pooled cohort from two clinical S-ICD databases, the IDE Trial and the EFFORTLESS Registry, complications, IASs at 180 days follow-up and implant procedure duration were assessed. Patients were grouped in quartiles based on experience of the implanter and Kaplan-Meier estimates of complication and IAS rates were calculated. A total of 882 patients implanted in 61 centres by 107 implanters with a median of 4 implants (IQR 1,8) were analysed. There were a total of 59 patients with complications and 48 patients with IAS. The complication rate decreased significantly from 9.8% in Quartile 1 (least experience) to 5.4% in Quartile 4 (most experience) (P = 0.02) and non-significantly for IAS from 7.9 to 4.8% (P = 0.10). Multivariable analysis demonstrated a hazard ratio of 0.78 (P = 0.045) for complications and 1.01 (P = 0.958) for IAS. Dual-zone programming increased with experience of the individual implanter (P < 0.001), which reduced IAS significantly in the multivariable model (HR 0.44, P = 0.01). Procedure time decreased from 75 to 65 min (P < 0.001). The complication rate and procedure time stabilized after Quartile 2 (>13 implants)., Conclusion: There is a short and significant learning curve associated with physicians adopting the S-ICD. Performance stabilizes after 13 implants., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) was introduced to overcome complications related to transvenous leads. Adoption of the S-ICD requires implanters to learn a new implantation technique. The aim of this study was to assess the learning curve for S-ICD implanters with respect to implant-related complications, procedure time, and inappropriate shocks (IASs).Methods and Results: In a pooled cohort from two clinical S-ICD databases, the IDE Trial and the EFFORTLESS Registry, complications, IASs at 180 days follow-up and implant procedure duration were assessed. Patients were grouped in quartiles based on experience of the implanter and Kaplan-Meier estimates of complication and IAS rates were calculated. A total of 882 patients implanted in 61 centres by 107 implanters with a median of 4 implants (IQR 1,8) were analysed. There were a total of 59 patients with complications and 48 patients with IAS. The complication rate decreased significantly from 9.8% in Quartile 1 (least experience) to 5.4% in Quartile 4 (most experience) (P = 0.02) and non-significantly for IAS from 7.9 to 4.8% (P = 0.10). Multivariable analysis demonstrated a hazard ratio of 0.78 (P = 0.045) for complications and 1.01 (P = 0.958) for IAS. Dual-zone programming increased with experience of the individual implanter (P < 0.001), which reduced IAS significantly in the multivariable model (HR 0.44, P = 0.01). Procedure time decreased from 75 to 65 min (P < 0.001). The complication rate and procedure time stabilized after Quartile 2 (>13 implants).Conclusion: There is a short and significant learning curve associated with physicians adopting the S-ICD. Performance stabilizes after 13 implants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Comparison of outcomes between subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD and TV-ICD) therapy is hampered by varying patient characteristics and complication definitions. The aim of this analysis is to compare clinical outcomes of S-ICD and TV-ICD therapy in a matched cohort.Methods and results: Patients implanted with de novo implantable cardioverter-defibrillators without need for pacing were selected from two studies: SIMPLE (n = 1091 single and n = 553 dual chamber TV-ICDs) and EFFORTLESS (n = 798 S-ICDs). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients were 1:1 matched on propensity score to TV-ICD patients. Propensity scores were calculated using 15 baseline characteristics including diagnosis. The Kaplan-Meier estimates for complications requiring invasive intervention, appropriate shocks, and inappropriate shocks were calculated at 3 years follow-up. The primary analysis yielded 391 patients pairs with balanced baseline characteristics, with mean age 55 ± 14 years, 49% ischaemic cardiomyopathy, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 40%, 71% primary prevention, and 89% of TV-ICDs were single chamber. Follow-up was mean 2.9 years in the S-ICD arm vs. 3.3 in the TV-ICD arm. All-cause complications occurred in 9.0% of S-ICD vs. 6.5% of TV-ICD patients, P = 0.29. Appropriate shocks occurred in 9.9% of S-ICD vs. 13.8% in TV-ICD patients, P = 0.03 and inappropriate shocks in 11.9% in S-ICD vs. 8.9% in TV-ICD patients (P = 0.07). Total shock burden (20 vs. 31, P = 0.05) and appropriate shock burden per 100 patients years (9 vs. 18, P = 0.02) were lower for S-ICD patients, while inappropriate shock burden was equal (11 vs. 13, P = 0.56).Conclusion: The earliest experience of the S-ICD demonstrates similar outcomes as contemporary TV-ICD therapy in a matched comparison with predominately single-chamber devices at 3 years follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]