Citations

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.

AbstractIntroductionThe outcomes of repeated cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) lead extraction have not been well studied. We sought to determine the indications, outcomes, and safety of repeated lead extraction procedures.MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted using data from two medical centers, including 38 patients who had undergone two or more lead extraction procedures compared to 439 patients who had a single procedure. The electronic medical records and procedural databases were reviewed to determine the indications, procedural characteristics, and outcomes. The outcomes of the first procedure were compared to the outcomes of subsequent procedures.ResultsThe 5‐year cumulative probability of a repeated extraction procedure was 11% (95% confidence interval, 7%–15%). In 439 patients who underwent single lead extractions, 72% had device and lead related infections as the procedure indication compared to 39% for 38 patients who underwent repeated extraction (P < 0.001). The mean duration from device reimplant to repeated extraction procedures was 63 ± 48 months. Ninety‐eight percent of the leads were removed completely in repeated procedures, similar to the 95% success rate of the first procedure (P = 0.51). There was no significant difference in major complication rate in the first or repeated extractions (2.6% vs 5.2%, P = 0.79).ConclusionsRepeated transvenous lead extraction is not uncommon. It had a high success rate comparable to that of the initial procedure and was not associated with an increased incidence of adverse events.

BackgroundLeft ventricular (LV) pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can be achieved via a transvenous or epicardial route. A surgically implanted epicardial LV (eLV) lead is used after a standard transvenous LV (tLV) lead implantation has failed. However, studies of clinical outcomes in patients with eLV leads and comparisons of outcome between tLV and eLV‐CRT are sparse. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare clinical response between tLV‐CRT and eLV‐CRT, as well as to understand the differences within the eLV‐CRT population.MethodsForty‐four patients received eLV‐CRT following unsuccessful attempts of tLV‐CRT implantation between 2002 and 2013 at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and Mayo Clinics. These patients were matched for age, gender, and etiology of cardiomyopathy in a 1:2 ratio with a cohort of patients who received tLV‐CRT during the same time period.ResultsDuring a mean follow‐up of 57 months, similar clinical outcomes and survival rate were noted between tLV and eLV‐CRT patients (all P > 0.05). Within the eLV‐CRT group, dilated cardiomyopathy patients had significant improvement in New York Heart Association class and ejection fraction (both P < 0.05), while ischemic cardiomyopathy patients did not (both P > 0.05). eLV‐CRT patients with nonanterior lead location had significantly improved survival (P < 0.001). There was also a trend for improved survival in those with nonapical lead location (P = 0.09).ConclusionIn this case‐matched two‐centered study, comparable improvements were noted in patients with tLV‐CRT and eLV‐CRT. Operators should target nonanterior and nonapical locations during eLV‐CRT implantation. Use of eLV‐CRT should be considered a viable alternative for CRT candidates.

Background— Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator system efficacy is tested at implant by induction of ventricular fibrillation (VF). Defibrillation safety margin can be assessed without VF induction using upper limit of vulnerability methods, but these methods have required manual determination of T-wave timing. Methods and Results— To test the feasibility of an inductionless system of implant testing, a multicenter prospective study of an automated vulnerability safety margin system was conducted, which measured T-wave timing using an intracardiac electrogram during a ventricular pacing train. The system delivered up to 4 T-wave shocks of 18 J. Lack of VF induction by all 4 shocks was considered evidence of defibrillation adequacy. Patients subsequently underwent conventional defibrillation testing to meet a standard implant criterion. The 95% lower CI for defibrillation success at 25 J for noninduced patients was found using Bayesian statistics. Sixty patients were enrolled at 6 centers. Vulnerability testing and defibrillation success results were obtained from 54 patients. Vulnerability testing induced VF in 10 (19%) patients, of whom 2 required system revision. All patients not induced by vulnerability testing were successfully defibrillated twice at ≤25 J. The Bayesian credible interval was 97% to 100% for the population success rate of defibrillation at 25 J for automated vulnerability safety margin noninduced patients. Conclusions— An automated system identified all patients who failed conventional safety margin testing, while inducing only 19% of patients. Although limited by sample size, this study suggests the feasibility of automated implant testing that substantially reduces the need for VF induction in patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.