Epstein, Laurence M

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.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented substantial challenges to patient care and impacted healthcare delivery, including cardiac electrophysiology practice throughout the globe. Based upon the undetermined course and regional variability of the pandemic, there is uncertainty as to how and when to resume and deliver electrophysiology services for patients with arrhythmia. This joint document from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, American Heart Association, and American College of Cardiology seeks to provide guidance for clinicians and institutions reestablishing safe electrophysiological care. To achieve this aim, we address regional and local COVID-19 disease status, the role of viral screening and serological testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication, prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.