Pre-implant predictors of inappropriate shocks with the third-generation subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Issue 12 (25th August 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ben Kilani, Mouna; Jacon, Peggy; Badenco, Nicolas; Marquie, Christelle; Ollitrault, Pierre; Behar, Nathalie; Khattar, Pierre; Carabelli, Adrien; Venier, Sandrine; Defaye, Pascal
• Is Part Of: Europace. Volume 24:Issue 12(2022)
• Page Start: 1952
• Page End: 1959
• Publication Date: 2022-08-25
• Subjects: Inappropriate shocks -- Subcutaneous ICD -- Vectors -- ECG; Arrhythmia -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Catheter ablation -- Periodicals; Heart -- Physiology -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1093/europace/euac134
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1099-5129

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: Despite recent improvements, inappropriate shocks emitted by implanted subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) remain a challenge in 'real-life' practice. We aimed to study the pre-implant factors associated with inappropriate shocks for the latest generation of S-ICDs. Methods and results: Three-hundred patients implanted with the third-generation S-ICD system for primary or secondary prevention between January 2017 and March 2020 were included in this multicentre retrospective observational study. A follow-up of at least 6 months and pre-implant screening procedure data were mandatory for inclusion. During a mean follow-up of 22.8 (±11.4) months, 37 patients (12.3%) received appropriate S-ICD shock therapy, whereas 26 patients (8.7%) experienced inappropriate shocks (incidence 4.9 per 100 patient years). The total number of inappropriate shock episodes was 48, with nine patients experiencing multiple episodes. The causes of inappropriate shocks included supraventricular arrhythmias (34.6%) and cardiac (30.7%) or extra-cardiac noise (38.4%) oversensing. Using multivariate analysis, we explored the independent factors associated with inappropriate shocks. These were the availability of less than three sensing vectors during pre-implant screening [hazard ratio (HR), 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.11–0.93; P = 0.035], low QRS/T wave ratio in Lead I (for a threshold <3; HR, 4.79; 95% CI, 2.00–11.49; P < 0.001), history of supraventricular tachycardia (HR, 8.67; 95% CI, 2.80–26.7; P < 0.001), and being overweight (body mass index > 25; HR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.10–6.45; P = 0.03). Conclusion: Automatic pre-implant screening data are a useful quantitative predictor of inappropriate shocks. Electrocardiogram features should be taken into consideration along with other clinical factors to identify patients at high risk of inappropriate shocks.