Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: First single-center experience with other cardiac implantable electronic devices

Kuschyk, Jürgen; Stach, Ksenija; Tülümen, Erol; Rudic, Boris; Liebe, Volker; Schimpf, Rainer; Borggrefe, Martin; Röger, Susanne

doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.06.022

Cited by 51 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In both circumstances, S-ICD had been placed, with subsequent appropriate detection and termination of VF by the S-ICD. 29 Therapy delay was absent and no inappropriate shocks delivered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Right Parasternal Lead Placement Increases Eligibility for Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease

Okamura

McLeod

DeSimone

et al. 2016

Circ J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) provides an attractive option for patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) in whom a transvenous defibrillator is contraindicated. Given the unusual cardiac anatomy and repolarization strain, the surface electrocardiogram (ECG) is frequently abnormal, potentially increasing the screen failure rate. Methods and Results:We prospectively screened 100 adult CHD patients regardless of the presence of clinical indication for ICD utilizing a standard left sternal lead placement, as well as a right parasternal position. Baseline patient and 12-lead ECG characteristics were examined to assess for predictors of screen failure. Average patient age was 48±14 years, average QRS duration was 134±37 ms, and 13 patients were pacemaker dependent. Using the standard left parasternal electrode position, 21 patients failed screening. Of these 21 patients with screen failure, 9 passed screening with the use of right parasternal electrode positioning, reducing screening failure rate from 21% to 12%. QT interval and inverted T wave anywhere in V2-V6 leads were found to be independent predictors of left parasternal screening failure (P=0.01 and P=0.04, respectively). Conclusions:Utilization of both left and right parasternal screening should be used in evaluation of CHD patients for S-ICD eligibility. ECG repolarization characteristics were also identified as novel predictors of screening failure in this group. (Circ J 2016; 80: 1328 -1335

show abstract

“…In both circumstances, S-ICD had been placed, with subsequent appropriate detection and termination of VF by the S-ICD. 29 Therapy delay was absent and no inappropriate shocks delivered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…29 Furthermore, the present cohort encompassed a wide variety of CHD syndromes, including 13 patients with ventricular paced rhythms. Importantly, 6 patients (46%) with ventricular pacing failed the screening; 3 of those patients were eligible for a right-sided system.…”

Section: Inverted T Wave In Precordial Lead As Predictor Of Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Right Parasternal Lead Placement Increases Eligibility for Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease

Okamura

McLeod

DeSimone

et al. 2016

Circ J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous reports have documented successful implantation of S-ICD devices in the presence of other CIEDs, including transvenous pacemakers,4, 5 epicardial patches, 2 cardiac contractility modulators, and vagal nerve stimulators 3 . In all cases the S-ICD was shown to function properly after undergoing rigorous testing for device–device interactions, especially defects in its sensing and shock delivery capabilities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Noting the historical significance of pacemaker–defibrillator interactions, we had concerns regarding whether the 2 devices would interfere with one another, in terms of both can–can interactions and the ability of the S-ICD algorithm to appropriately sense ventricular arrhythmias while the TV-ICD was pacing. Limited reports of experiences with concomitant pacemaker and S-ICD implantation have been uneventful when testing sensing and shocking capabilities of the S-ICD with a variety of pacemaker settings 2, 3…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is typically not used in patients who require additional therapies conferred by transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) systems, such as bradycardia pacing or antitachycardia pacing (ATP) for ventricular tachycardia (VT). Despite reports of successful S-ICD implantation in patients with other cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs),2, 3, 4, 5 we are not aware of any reports to date in which S-ICD implantation complemented a pre-existing TV-ICD as a backup device for successful defibrillation. We report the case of a patient who presented with this clinical dilemma.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement in a patient with a preexisting transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Jazayeri

Emert

Bartos

et al. 2017

HeartRhythm Case Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long‐term results of combined cardiac contractility modulation and subcutaneous defibrillator therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

Röger

Rudic

Akın

et al. 2018

Clinical Cardiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is an electrical‐device therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% also have indication for an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD), and in some cases subcutaneous ICD (S‐ICD) is selected.HypothesisCCM and S‐ICD can be combined to work efficaciously and safely.MethodsWe report on 20 patients with HFrEF and LVEF ≤35% who received CCM and S‐ICD. To exclude device interference, patients received intraoperative crosstalk testing, S‐ICD testing, and bicycle exercise testing while CCM was activated. Clinical and QOL measures before CCM activation and at last follow‐up were analyzed. S‐ICD performance was evaluated while both CCM and S‐ICD were active.ResultsMean follow‐up was 34.3 months. NYHA class improved from 2.9 ± 0.4 to 2.1 ± 0.7 (P < 0.0001), Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire score improved from 50.2 ± 23.7 to 29.6 ± 22.8 points (P < 0.0001), and LVEF improved from 24.4% ± 8.1% to 30.9% ± 9.6% (P = 0.002). Mean follow‐up time with both devices active was 22 months. Three patients experienced a total of 6 episodes of sustained ventricular tachycardia, all successfully treated with first ICD shock. One case received an inappropriate shock unrelated to the concomitant CCM. One patient received an LVAD, so CCM and S‐ICD were discontinued.ConclusionsCCM and S‐ICD can be successfully combined in patients with HFrEF. S‐ICD and CCM remain efficacious when used together, with no interference affecting their function.

show abstract

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: First single-center experience with other cardiac implantable electronic devices

Cited by 51 publications

References 28 publications

Right Parasternal Lead Placement Increases Eligibility for Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease

Right Parasternal Lead Placement Increases Eligibility for Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement in a patient with a preexisting transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Long‐term results of combined cardiac contractility modulation and subcutaneous defibrillator therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About