Cargando…

Defibrillation testing during S-ICD implantation: How relevant? Results from a multicenter study

FUNDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Type of funding sources: None. INTRODUCTION: Defibrillation testing (DFT) is still recommended in patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) to ensure proper detection of ventricular fibrillation and confirm effective defibrillation. Given the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ben Kilani, M, Jacon, P, Badenco, N, Marquie, C, Ollitrault, P, Behar, N, Khattar, P, Carabelli, A, Venier, S, Defaye, P
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10207133/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euad122.426
_version_ 1785046383160459264
author Ben Kilani, M
Jacon, P
Badenco, N
Marquie, C
Ollitrault, P
Behar, N
Khattar, P
Carabelli, A
Venier, S
Defaye, P
author_facet Ben Kilani, M
Jacon, P
Badenco, N
Marquie, C
Ollitrault, P
Behar, N
Khattar, P
Carabelli, A
Venier, S
Defaye, P
author_sort Ben Kilani, M
collection PubMed
description FUNDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Type of funding sources: None. INTRODUCTION: Defibrillation testing (DFT) is still recommended in patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) to ensure proper detection of ventricular fibrillation and confirm effective defibrillation. Given the significant risk of complications, recent studies, are reconsidering the interest of the DFT in S-ICD. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical "real-life" outcomes of DFT over a mid-term follow-up period after third-generation S-ICD implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: 368 patients (pts) (47.9 ± 15.5 years old; male 72.8%) implanted with Generation 3 S-ICD system were included in this retrospective multicenter registry-based study. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 40.8% (primary prevention 56.1%). For 99.2% pts, S-ICD implantation was performed using the two-incision technique and intermuscular positioning of the generator was performed for all pts. 81% pts underwent ICD testing during implantation. Reasons for not performing DFT were: very low LVEF (3.5%), intracardiac thrombus (2.4%) and VF induction failure. In 2.2% (8 pts) DFT was unsuccessful, causes were: induction of ventricular tachycardias with rates falling below the shock zone for 3 pts while shocks were ineffective for 5 pts. One patient required revision for contralateral lead implantation, while sensing vector reprogramming and shock polarity modification were efficient for the others. The mean impedance was 68.4 (±14.7) Ω and time to shock therapy ranged from 10 to 33 s, with a mean of 16.7 (±4) s. A total of 36 appropriate shocks (10.1%) have been observed after a FU period of 11.02±8.8 months (1.8 shocks per patient, several shocks for 12pts, failure of the first shock for 5 patients). 17 patients (4.6%) underwent S-ICD system extraction. The reasons were pocket site complication (7 pts), pacing indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy or bradycardia (3 pts), and S-ICD lead dysfunction (4 pts). Extraction after heart transplant was needed in 3 pts. Among the 4 pts explanted for system dysfunction, only one patient had a DFT during implantation. After a mean follow-up of 19±12.1 months, the mortality rate was 3.8% (no S-ICD-related deaths were reported). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups of pts with and without DFT testing (p=0.629). CONCLUSION: The DFT remains for the moment highly recommended during S-ICD implantations. Results from randomized studies are still needed to confirm the relevance of DFT during S-ICD implantation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10207133
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102071332023-05-25 Defibrillation testing during S-ICD implantation: How relevant? Results from a multicenter study Ben Kilani, M Jacon, P Badenco, N Marquie, C Ollitrault, P Behar, N Khattar, P Carabelli, A Venier, S Defaye, P Europace 14.2 - Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) FUNDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Type of funding sources: None. INTRODUCTION: Defibrillation testing (DFT) is still recommended in patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) to ensure proper detection of ventricular fibrillation and confirm effective defibrillation. Given the significant risk of complications, recent studies, are reconsidering the interest of the DFT in S-ICD. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical "real-life" outcomes of DFT over a mid-term follow-up period after third-generation S-ICD implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: 368 patients (pts) (47.9 ± 15.5 years old; male 72.8%) implanted with Generation 3 S-ICD system were included in this retrospective multicenter registry-based study. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 40.8% (primary prevention 56.1%). For 99.2% pts, S-ICD implantation was performed using the two-incision technique and intermuscular positioning of the generator was performed for all pts. 81% pts underwent ICD testing during implantation. Reasons for not performing DFT were: very low LVEF (3.5%), intracardiac thrombus (2.4%) and VF induction failure. In 2.2% (8 pts) DFT was unsuccessful, causes were: induction of ventricular tachycardias with rates falling below the shock zone for 3 pts while shocks were ineffective for 5 pts. One patient required revision for contralateral lead implantation, while sensing vector reprogramming and shock polarity modification were efficient for the others. The mean impedance was 68.4 (±14.7) Ω and time to shock therapy ranged from 10 to 33 s, with a mean of 16.7 (±4) s. A total of 36 appropriate shocks (10.1%) have been observed after a FU period of 11.02±8.8 months (1.8 shocks per patient, several shocks for 12pts, failure of the first shock for 5 patients). 17 patients (4.6%) underwent S-ICD system extraction. The reasons were pocket site complication (7 pts), pacing indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy or bradycardia (3 pts), and S-ICD lead dysfunction (4 pts). Extraction after heart transplant was needed in 3 pts. Among the 4 pts explanted for system dysfunction, only one patient had a DFT during implantation. After a mean follow-up of 19±12.1 months, the mortality rate was 3.8% (no S-ICD-related deaths were reported). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups of pts with and without DFT testing (p=0.629). CONCLUSION: The DFT remains for the moment highly recommended during S-ICD implantations. Results from randomized studies are still needed to confirm the relevance of DFT during S-ICD implantation. Oxford University Press 2023-05-24 /pmc/articles/PMC10207133/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euad122.426 Text en © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle 14.2 - Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD)
Ben Kilani, M
Jacon, P
Badenco, N
Marquie, C
Ollitrault, P
Behar, N
Khattar, P
Carabelli, A
Venier, S
Defaye, P
Defibrillation testing during S-ICD implantation: How relevant? Results from a multicenter study
title Defibrillation testing during S-ICD implantation: How relevant? Results from a multicenter study
title_full Defibrillation testing during S-ICD implantation: How relevant? Results from a multicenter study
title_fullStr Defibrillation testing during S-ICD implantation: How relevant? Results from a multicenter study
title_full_unstemmed Defibrillation testing during S-ICD implantation: How relevant? Results from a multicenter study
title_short Defibrillation testing during S-ICD implantation: How relevant? Results from a multicenter study
title_sort defibrillation testing during s-icd implantation: how relevant? results from a multicenter study
topic 14.2 - Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD)
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10207133/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euad122.426
work_keys_str_mv AT benkilanim defibrillationtestingduringsicdimplantationhowrelevantresultsfromamulticenterstudy
AT jaconp defibrillationtestingduringsicdimplantationhowrelevantresultsfromamulticenterstudy
AT badencon defibrillationtestingduringsicdimplantationhowrelevantresultsfromamulticenterstudy
AT marquiec defibrillationtestingduringsicdimplantationhowrelevantresultsfromamulticenterstudy
AT ollitraultp defibrillationtestingduringsicdimplantationhowrelevantresultsfromamulticenterstudy
AT beharn defibrillationtestingduringsicdimplantationhowrelevantresultsfromamulticenterstudy
AT khattarp defibrillationtestingduringsicdimplantationhowrelevantresultsfromamulticenterstudy
AT carabellia defibrillationtestingduringsicdimplantationhowrelevantresultsfromamulticenterstudy
AT veniers defibrillationtestingduringsicdimplantationhowrelevantresultsfromamulticenterstudy
AT defayep defibrillationtestingduringsicdimplantationhowrelevantresultsfromamulticenterstudy