Sensitivity and specificity of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator pre-implant screening tool. (15th September 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zeb, Mehmood; Curzen, Nick; Allavatam, Venugopal; Wilson, David; Yue, Arthur; Roberts, Paul; Morgan, John
• Is Part Of: International journal of cardiology. Volume 195(2015)
• Page Start: 205
• Page End: 209
• Publication Date: 2015-09-15
• Subjects: Sudden cardiac death -- Congenital heart disease -- Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter -- Sensing algorithm; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 616.12
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.05.082
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0167-5273

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The sensitivity and specificity of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) pre-implant screening tool required clinical evaluation. Methods: Bipolar vectors were derived from electrodes positioned at locations similar to those employed for S-ICD sensing and pre-implant screening electrodes, and recordings collected through 80-electrode PRIME®-ECGs, in six different postures, from 40 subjects (10 healthy controls, and 30 patients with complex congenital heart disease (CCHD); 10 with Tetralogy of Fallot (TOF), 10 with single ventricle physiology (SVP), and 10 with transposition of great arteries (TGA)). The resulting vectors were analysed using the S-ICD pre-implant screening tool (Boston Scientific) and processed through the sensing algorithm of S-ICD (Boston Scientific). The data were then evaluated using 2 × 2 contingency tables. Fisher exact and McNemar tests were used for a comparison of the different categories of CCHD, and p < 0.05 vs. controls considered to be statistically significant. Results: 57% of patients were male, mean age of 36.3 years. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the S-ICD screening tool were 95%, 79%, 59% and 98%, respectively, for controls, and 84%, 79%, 76% and 86%, respectively, in patients with CCHD (p = 0.0001). Conclusion: The S-ICD screening tool was comparatively more sensitive in normal controls but less specific in both CCHD patients and controls; a possible explanation for the reported high incidence of inappropriate S-ICD shocks. Thus, we propose a pre-implant screening device using the S-ICD sensing algorithm to minimise false exclusion and selection, and hence minimise potentially inappropriate shocks.