Citations

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.

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.

Background: Transvenous implantable cardiac 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 (EV 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 Design: The EV ICD pivotal study is a prospective, multi-center, single-arm, non-randomized, pre-market 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. Objective: The 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 (ATP) performance, electrical performance, extracardiac pacing sensation, asystole pacing, appropriate and inappropriate shocks, as well as a summary of adverse events. Conclusion: The EV ICD pivotal study is designed to provide clear evidence addressing the safety and efficacy performance of the EV ICD System.

Abstract Introduction Chronic right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been associated with dyssynchrony, leading to increased mortality. However, there have been discrepancies in previous reports in the effect of RVP levels. Objective To sub-stratify mortality risk by age for different RVP level groups within a large real-world ICD cohort. Methods Optum® de-identified electronic health records were linked to the Medtronic Carelink data to identify dual chamber ICD recipients (2007–2017). RVP level was based on median daily pacing during the first 90 days post-implant and categorized either into groups with a cutoff of 40%, or with groups of 0–9%, 10–19%, 20–29%, 30–39%, 40–49%, and 50–100%. The endpoint was death more than 90 days post-implant. Kaplan-Meier survival curves, log-rank tests, and Cox regression were used to analyze the relationship between RVP and risk of death. Results Among 14,832 ICD patients (median age 67; 74.0% male), there were 2,602 deaths within 10 years after implant. In unadjusted comparisons, high RVP (>40%) increased the risk of death relative to low RVP (≤40%) (p<0.001). This effect remained significant in older cohort (≥67 years old at implant) (p<0.001), but not in younger cohort (<67 years old) (p=0.955) (Figure). After controlling for age, gender, pacing mode, MI, SCA, HF hospitalization, diabetes, and renal dysfunction, similar or increased risk was associated with higher pacing groups relative to the 0–9% pacing group in the older cohort, but not in the younger cohort. Conclusions Our data from a large contemporaneous real-world source suggests that older age or characteristics associated with age make patients more sensitive to chronic RVP effects. These results help reconcile differences observed in prior studies. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private company. Main funding source(s): Medtronic, Inc.

AbstractBackgroundThe AdaptivCRT (aCRT) algorithm continuously adjusts cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) according to intrinsic atrioventricular conduction, providing synchronized left ventricular pacing in patients with normal PR interval and adaptive BiV pacing in patients with prolonged PR interval. Previous analyses demonstrated an association between aCRT and clinical benefit. We evaluated the incidence of patient mortality and atrial fibrillation (AF) with aCRT compared with standard CRT in a real‐world population.Methods and ResultsPatients enrolled in the Medtronic Personalized CRT Registry and implanted with a CRT from 2013‐2018 were divided into aCRT ON or standard CRT groups based upon device‐stored data. A Frailty survival model was used to evaluate the potential survival benefit of aCRT, accounting for patient heterogeneity and center variability. Daily AF burden and first device‐detected AF episodes of various durations were recorded by the device during follow‐up.A total of 1814 CRT patients with no reported long‐standing AF history at implant were included. Mean follow‐up time was 26.1 ± 16.5 months and 1162 patients (64.1%) had aCRT ON. Patient survival probability at 36 months was 88.3% for aCRT ON and 83.7% for standard CRT (covariate‐adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.53‐0.96, P = .028). Mean AF burden during follow‐up was consistently lower in aCRT ON patients compared with standard CRT. At 36 months, the probability of AF was lower in patients with aCRT ON, regardless of which AF definition threshold was applied (6 minutes‐30 days, all P < .001).ConclusionUse of the AdaptivCRT algorithm was associated with improved patient survival and lower incidence of AF in a real‐world, prospective, nonrandomized registry.