Personalized subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator sensing vectors generated by mathematical rotation increase device eligibility whilst preserving device performance . Issue 8 (11th January 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wiles, Benedict M; Roberts, Paul R; Allavatam, Venugopal; Acharyya, Amit; Vemishetty, Naresh; ElRefai, Mohamed; Wilson, David G; Maharatna, Koushik; Chen, Hanjie; Morgan, John M
• Is Part Of: Europace. Volume 24:Issue 8(2022)
• Page Start: 1267
• Page End: 1275
• Publication Date: 2022-01-11
• Subjects: Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator -- Subcutaneous -- Defibrillator -- Sensing vector -- Ventricular fibrillation; Arrhythmia -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Catheter ablation -- Periodicals; Heart -- Physiology -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1093/europace/euab310
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1099-5129

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: Approximately 5.7% of potential subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) recipients are ineligible by virtue of their vector morphology, with higher rates of ineligibility observed in some at-risk groups. Mathematical vector rotation is a novel technique that can generate a personalized sensing vector, one with maximal R:T ratio, using electrocardiogram (ECG) signal recorded from the present S-ICD location. Methods and results: A cohort of S-ICD ineligible patients were identified through ECG screening of ICD patients with no ventricular pacing requirement and their personalized vectors were generated using ECG signal from a Holter monitor. Subcutaneous ICD eligibility in this cohort was then recalculated. In a separate cohort, episodes of arrhythmia were recorded in patients undergoing arrhythmia induction, and arrhythmia detection in standard S-ICD vectors was compared to rotated vectors using an S-ICD simulator. Ninety-two participants (mean age 64.9 ± 2.7 years) underwent screening and 5.4% were found to be S-ICD ineligible. Personalized vector generation increased the R:T ratio in these vectors from 2.21 to 7.21 (4.54–9.88, P < 0.001) increasing the cohort eligibility from 94.6% to 100%. Rotated S-ICD vectors also showed high ventricular fibrillation (VF) detection sensitivity (97.8%), low time to VF detection (6.1 s), and excellent tachycardia discrimination (sensitivity 96%, specificity 88%), with no significant differences between rotated and standard vectors. Conclusion: In S-ICD ineligible patients, mathematical vector rotation can generate a personalized vector that is associated with a significant increase in R:T ratio, resulting in universal device eligibility in our cohort. Ventricular fibrillation detection efficacy, time to VF detection, and tachycardia discrimination were not affected by vector rotation.