Boersma, Lucas

BACKGROUND: MODULAR antitachycardia pacing (ATP), a multicenter, international trial, assesses a modular cardiac rhythm management system: a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator in wireless communication with a leadless pacemaker (LP) capable of pace-terminating ventricular tachycardia. METHODS: Enrolees had one or more clinical risk factors for ventricular tachycardia and did not require chronic pacing. Complications included prespecified major LP system- and procedure-related complications, and any complication related to the LP, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator, implantation, or study protocol. Survival analysis was performed to identify complication-free rates, therapy delivery, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: The 297 patients enrolled had an ejection fraction of 35±13%, 43% secondary prevention indications, and 59% with prior ventricular arrhythmias. Of 286 patients undergoing LP implantation (100% success), 251 patients completed 12-month follow-up. Mortality rate was 6%, with none related to the implant procedure. Median follow-up duration was 23.4 months (interquartile range, 17.9–28.1). The LP major complication-free rate was 97.2%, exceeding the performance goal. The overall LP+ subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator system-related complication-free rate was 88.5%. Appropriate tachyarrhythmia-therapy (ATP+shock) rates were 14.4%, and appropriate shock rates were 8.5%. Inappropriate total tachyarrhythmia therapy was 9.5% of which 8.5% were shocks. ATP was 67.3% successful in terminating ventricular arrhythmia episodes and accelerated ventricular arrhythmias in 10.1% of episodes. Overall therapy burden (ATP+shock) was 96/100 patient-years, of which 44/100 patient-years was for shock delivery. CONCLUSIONS: One-year outcomes of the first modular pacing-defibrillator system reveal low system and LP complication rates and good ATP efficacy rates, suggesting that the modular cardiac rhythm management is a viable alternative to single-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators using low-energy pacing capability without the need for transvenous leads. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ; Unique identifier: NCT04798768.

BACKGROUND: Substernal lead placement of the extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator (EV ICD) permits both defibrillation at thresholds similar to those seen with transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators and effective anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) while avoiding the vasculature and associated complications. The global Pivotal study has shown the EV ICD system to be safe and effective through 6 months, but long-term experience has yet to be published. Our aim was to report the performance and safety of the EV ICD system throughout the study. METHODS: The EV ICD Pivotal study was a prospective, global, single-arm, premarket clinical study. Individuals with a Class I or IIa indication for a single-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator per guidelines were enrolled. Freedom from major system- or procedure-related complications and appropriate and inappropriate therapy rates were assessed through 3 years with the Kaplan-Meier method. ATP success was calculated from simple proportions. RESULTS: An implantation was attempted in 316 patients (25.3% female; 53.8±13.1 years of age; 81.6% primary prevention; left ventricular ejection fraction, 38.9±15.4%). Of 299 patients with a successful implantation, 24 experienced 82 spontaneous arrhythmic episodes that were appropriately treated with ATP only (38, 46.3%), shock only (34, 41.5%), or both (10, 12.2%) for a Kaplan-Meier–estimated rate of first any appropriate therapy of 9.2% at 3 years. ATP was successful in 77.1% (37/48) of episodes, and ATP use significantly increased from discharge to last follow-up visit ( P <0.0001). Shock therapy was successful in 100% (27/27) of discrete, spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias. The inappropriate shock rates at 1 and 3 years were 9.8% and 17.5%, respectively, with P-wave oversensing the predominant cause. No major intraprocedural complications were reported, and the estimated freedom from system- or procedure-related major complications was 91.9% at 1 year and 89.0% at 3 years. The most common major complications were lead dislodgement (10 events; n=9 patients, 2.8%), postoperative wound or device pocket infection (n=8, 2.5%), and device inappropriate shock delivery (n=4, 1.3%). Twenty-four system revisions were performed as a result of major complications related to the EV ICD system or procedure. CONCLUSIONS: From implantation to study completion, the EV ICD Pivotal study demonstrated that a single integrated system with an extravascular lead placed in the substernal space maintains high ATP success, effective defibrillation, and a consistent safety profile. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04060680.

Abstract Aims The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (EV ICD) has been shown to be safe and effective for patients at risk of sudden cardiac death, but little is known about EV ICD lead removal in humans. This analysis aimed to characterize the EV ICD lead removal experience thus far. Methods and results This was a retrospective analysis of lead removals from the EV ICD Pilot, Pivotal, and Continued Access Studies. Patients with a successful EV ICD implant who underwent lead removal were included. The main objective was lead removal success. Ancillary objectives included characterizing technique used, procedure complications, and reimplantation status. An EV ICD system was successfully implanted in 347 patients across the 3 studies (25.9% female; 53.4 ± 13.3 years; left ventricular ejection fraction: 39.7 ± 15.9). Of these patients, 29 (8.4%) underwent lead removal with a mean lead dwell time of 12.6 ± 14.3 months (0.2–58.4). The main reason for lead removal was lead dislodgement (n = 9, 31.0%). Lead removal was successful in 27/29 (93.1%) cases [100% (19/19) success rate &lt;1 year and 80% (8/10) success rate &gt;1 year post-implant]. Simple traction was used in 22/26 (84.6%) and extraction tools in 4/26 (15.4%) successful cases where technique was known. No complications were reported for any of the removal procedures. All 11 EV ICD reimplant attempts were successful. Conclusion Complete removal of the EV ICD lead was successful in 93.1% of cases, and simple traction was sufficient in most instances. Based on these results, lead removal from the substernal space was safe and achievable up to 3 years post-implant.

Abstract Introduction The pivotal study of the extravascular implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (EV ICD) recently demonstrated primary efficacy and safety endpoints comparable to previous ICD systems. Patient experience with this novel device has not been reported. The current study examined the standardized patient‐reported outcome (PRO) metrics of quality of life (QOL) and patient acceptance of the device. Methods The EV ICD Pivotal Study was a prospective, single‐arm, nonrandomized, global, premarket approval trial. Patients completed the 12‐Item Short Form Survey (SF‐12) QOL surveys at baseline and at 6 months following implant. Additionally, patients completed the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS) QOL survey at 6 months. Results From baseline to 6 months, patients within the EV ICD Pivotal Study ( n = 247) reported statistically significant SF‐12 improvements in physical QOL (45.4 ± 9.4 vs. 46.8 ± 9.1 respectively, p = .020) and no changes in mental QOL (49.3 ± 10.4 vs. 50.5 ± 9.7, p = .061). No differences were noted by sex, atrial fibrillation, or the experience of ICD shock. EV ICD patients reported better total FPAS patient acceptance of their ICD than TV‐ICD or S‐ICD patients using historical norms comparisons (80.4 ± 15.7 vs. 70.2 ± 17.8, p < .0001 for S‐ICD and 73.0 ± 17.4, p = .004 for TV‐ICD). Conclusion The initial PROs for EV ICD patients indicated that patients had improvements in physical QOL from baseline to 6‐month follow‐up and markedly better overall acceptance of their ICD compared to a previous study with S‐ICD and TV‐ICD data. These initial results suggest that the EV ICD is evaluated positively by patients.

Background: Pulsed field ablation uses electrical pulses to cause nonthermal irreversible electroporation and induce cardiac cell death. Pulsed field ablation may have effectiveness comparable to traditional catheter ablation while preventing thermally mediated complications. Methods: The PULSED AF pivotal study (Pulsed Field Ablation to Irreversibly Electroporate Tissue and Treat AF) was a prospective, global, multicenter, nonrandomized, paired single-arm study in which patients with paroxysmal (n=150) or persistent (n=150) symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) refractory to class I or III antiarrhythmic drugs were treated with pulsed field ablation. All patients were monitored for 1 year using weekly and symptomatic transtelephonic monitoring; 3-, 6-, and 12-month ECGs; and 6- and 12-month 24-hour Holter monitoring. The primary effectiveness end point was freedom from a composite of acute procedural failure, arrhythmia recurrence, or antiarrhythmic escalation through 12 months, excluding a 3-month blanking period to allow recovery from the procedure. The primary safety end point was freedom from a composite of serious procedure- and device-related adverse events. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to evaluate the primary end points. Results: Pulsed field ablation was shown to be effective at 1 year in 66.2% (95% CI, 57.9 to 73.2) of patients with paroxysmal AF and 55.1% (95% CI, 46.7 to 62.7) of patients with persistent AF. The primary safety end point occurred in 1 patient (0.7%; 95% CI, 0.1 to 4.6) in both the paroxysmal and persistent AF cohorts. Conclusions: PULSED AF demonstrated a low rate of primary safety adverse events (0.7%) and provided effectiveness consistent with established ablation technologies using a novel irreversible electroporation energy to treat patients with AF. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04198701.

AbstractIntroductionThe extravascular implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (EV ICD) system with substernal lead placement is a novel nontransvenous alternative to current commercially available ICD systems. The EV ICD provides defibrillation and pacing therapies without the potential long‐term complications of endovascular lead placement but requires a new procedure for implantation with a safety profile under evaluation.MethodsThis paper summarizes the development of the EV ICD, including the preclinical and clinical evaluations that have contributed to the system and procedural refinements to date.ResultsExtensive preclinical research evaluations and four human clinical studies with >140 combined acute and chronic implants have enabled the development and refinement of the EV ICD system, currently in worldwide pivotal study.ConclusionThe EV ICD may represent a clinically valuable solution in protecting patients from sudden cardiac death while avoiding the long‐term consequences of transvenous hardware. The EV ICD offers advantages over transvenous and subcutaneous systems by avoiding placement in the heart and vasculature; relative to subcutaneous systems, EV ICD requires less energy for defibrillation, enabling a smaller device, and provides pacing features such as antitachycardia and asystole pacing in a single system.

Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel form of ablation using electrical fields to ablate cardiac tissue. There are only limited data assessing the feasibility and safety of this type of ablation in humans. Methods: PULSED AF (Pulsed Field Ablation to Irreversibly Electroporate Tissue and Treat AF; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; unique identifier: NCT04198701) is a nonrandomized, prospective, multicenter, global, premarket clinical study. The first-in-human pilot phase evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of pulmonary vein isolation using a novel PFA system delivering bipolar, biphasic electrical fields through a circular multielectrode array catheter (PulseSelect; Medtronic, Inc). Thirty-eight patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation were treated in 6 centers in Australia, Canada, the United States, and the Netherlands. The primary outcomes were ability to achieve acute pulmonary vein isolation intraprocedurally and safety at 30 days. Results: Acute electrical isolation was achieved in 100% of pulmonary veins (n=152) in the 38 patients. Skin-to-skin procedure time was 160±91 minutes, left atrial dwell time was 82±35 minutes, and fluoroscopy time was 28±9 minutes. No serious adverse events related to the PFA system occurred in the 30-day follow-up including phrenic nerve injury, esophageal injury, stroke, or death. Conclusions: In this first-in-human clinical study, 100% pulmonary vein isolation was achieved using only PFA with no PFA system–related serious adverse events. Graphic Abstract: A graphic abstract is available for this article.

AbstractBackgroundTransvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (TV ICD) provide life‐saving therapy for millions of patients worldwide. However, they are susceptible to several potential short‐ and long‐ term complications including cardiac perforation and pneumothorax, lead dislodgement, venous obstruction, and infection. The extravascular ICD system's novel design and substernal implant approach avoids the risks associated with TV ICDs while still providing pacing features and similar generator size to TV ICDs.Study DesignThe EV ICD pivotal study is a prospective, multicenter, single‐arm, nonrandomized, premarket clinical study designed to examine the safety and acute efficacy of the system. This study will enroll up to 400 patients with a Class I or IIa indication for implantation of an ICD. Implanted subjects will be followed up to approximately 3.5 years, depending on when the patient is enrolled.ObjectiveThe clinical trial is designed to demonstrate safety and effectiveness of the EV ICD system in human use. The safety endpoint is freedom from major complications, while the efficacy endpoint is defibrillation success. Both endpoints will be assessed against prespecified criteria. Additionally, this study will evaluate antitachycardia pacing performance, electrical performance, extracardiac pacing sensation, asystole pacing, appropriate and inappropriate shocks, as well as a summary of adverse events.ConclusionThe EV ICD pivotal study is designed to provide clear evidence addressing the safety and efficacy performance of the EV ICD System.