Search

Background: The Shockless IMPLant Evaluation (SIMPLE) trial showed that defibrillation testing (DT) at the time of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implant did not improve shock efficacy or reduce mortality. There are no data regarding the risk of complications, including stroke, among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who undergo DT., Objective: The purpose of this prospectively planned substudy of SIMPLE was to evaluate the effect of DT vs no DT on clinical outcomes among patients with AF., Methods: We compared efficacy (failed appropriate shock/arrhythmic death) and safety between patients who had AF on their immediate preprocedural ECG to the rest of the study patients. Then among patients with AF we compared these outcomes between patients randomized to DT vs no DT., Results: Of the 2500 patients enrolled in SIMPLE, 251 (10%) were in AF immediately before ICD implant. AF patients had an increased risk of failed appropriate shock/arrhythmic death (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-2.39; P = .009) and higher all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.58; 95% CI 1.2-2.08; P = .001). Among AF patients, perioperative complications and stroke did not significantly differ between DT vs no-DT groups (9.2% vs 5.4%; P = .2; and 1.7% vs 1.5%; P >.999, respectively). Failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death occurred in 35 of 251 AF patients (14%), and the no-DT group proved not inferior to the DT group (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.30-1.15; P noninferiority = .006)., Conclusion: ICD recipients with AF are at increased risk for adverse outcomes; however, DT does not improve arrhythmic survival or shock efficacy. There is no evidence that DT increased the occurrence of perioperative stroke., (Copyright © 2018 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This survey assesses the current opinion on and practice of the management of terminally ill patients with implanted cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in 47 large European centres. The principal findings of this survey were that most physicians (62%) from European centres who responded to this survey would consider deactivating ICDs at the patient's end of life. In these circumstances, multiple appropriate ICD shocks may be an indication to deactivate an ICD (83% positive answers). Remote deactivation by a remote monitoring system is not considered appropriate by 68%. Practices of deactivating procedure differ and approach to standardized clinical scenarios is inhomogeneous. Patients are provided with surprisingly little information on the possibility of deactivation of ICDs since this subject is only actively discussed in 4% of centres.

This survey sampled the follow-up (FU) strategies for atrial fibrillation ablation used by electrophysiology/ablation centres in Europe. Currently, FU relies on symptoms and short-term ECG recordings rather than monitoring by implantable devices. The responding centres show a lack of confidence in the long-term success after ablation, and confusion about definition of success which needs to be informed by updated European guidelines.

Although the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy has increased over the last decades, the reporting of ICD lead performance is inadequate. So far, there is neither a European nor worldwide registry on ICD leads. The published long-term results from national or multicentre registries encompass relatively small patient cohorts. Nevertheless, the failure of ICD leads may have substantial clinical consequences, including failure to sense, failure to pace, failure to defibrillate, inappropriate shocks, and even death of the patient. The reported ICD lead survival varies significantly between studies: 91-99% at 2 years, 85-95% at 5 years, and 60-72% at 8 years. Thus, the true incidence of lead malfunction cannot be defined as outlined in the present review. One current initiative of the European Heart Rhythm Association is to initiate and develop a Europe-wide registry to monitor, over a prolonged follow-up period, the performance of ICDs and ICD leads.