Citations

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.

Abstract Background The extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator (EV ICD) has recently emerged as an option for guideline indicated ICD patients. Results from the EV ICD Pilot and Pivotal studies demonstrated that the device can provide safe and effective therapy through chronic follow up. Lead placement outside the vasculature has the potential to reduce systemic infections. Infection occurrence and management details from the Pivotal are reported. Purpose To report on details of infection occurrence and management from the EV ICD Pivotal study. Methods The EV ICD Pivotal study was an international, prospective, single-arm, premarket clinical study. Patients with a class I or IIa indication for a single-chamber ICD per ESC or ACC/AHA/HRS guidelines were enrolled. Results In the EV ICD Pivotal study, 316 patients had an implant attempt, (74.7% male, age 53.8±13.1 years, 82% primary prevention, LVEF of 38.9%±15.4%, and NYHA Class I [23.7%] or II/III [65.5%]), of which 15 had a system or procedure-related infection (4.7%, 9 - 737 days post-implant) through an average 16.2 months follow-up. Of these infections, 8 were classified as major complications, 3 as minor, and 4 as observations. Most (n=9) infections were addressed through medication with or without wound care (2.8% of patients) while 6 (1.9% of patients) resulted in system removal. There was a single lead-related infection addressed through system explant. However, there were no reports of mediastinitis, sepsis, or endocarditis. No system removal resulted in sequelae. Conclusions Infection rates observed in the EV ICD Pivotal study were similar to those reported in the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator. The results from this study support that EV ICD related infections are treatable with antibiotic therapy or system removal. No system or procedure-related systemic infections such as mediastinitis, sepsis, or endocarditis have been reported in the Pivotal study.

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.

ImportancePatients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who have ischemic stroke despite taking oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) have a very high risk of recurrence. Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is a mechanical stroke prevention strategy that may provide additional protection in patients with thromboembolic events under OAT.ObjectiveTo compare percutaneous LAAO with continuing OAT alone regarding stroke prevention in patients with AF who had a thromboembolic event despite taking OAT.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study was a propensity score–matched comparison of the STR-OAC LAAO cohort, an international collaboration of 21 sites combining patients from multiple prospective registries of patients who underwent LAAO between 2010 and 2022. STR-OAC LAAO cohort patients who had follow-up longer than 3 months were propensity score–matched to a previously published control cohort comprising patients from an established international collaboration of investigator-initiated prospective studies. This control cohort included patients with nonvalvular AF, recent ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, and follow-up longer than 3 months who were taking OAT before the index event. Analyses were adjusted for imbalances in gender, age, hypertension, diabetes, and CHA2 DS2-VASc score.ExposureLeft atrial appendage occlusion vs continuation of oral anticoagulation therapy alone (control group).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was time to first ischemic stroke.ResultsFour hundred thirty-three patients from the STR-OAC LAAO cohort (mean [SD] age, 72 [9] years; 171 [39%] females and 262 [61%] males; mean [SD] CHA2 DS2-VASc score, 5.0 [1.6]) were matched to 433 of 1140 patients (38%) from the control group. During 2-year follow-up, 50 patients experienced ischemic stroke: an annualized event rate of 2.8% per patient-year in the STR-OAC LAAO group vs 8.9% per patient-year in the control group. Left atrial appendage occlusion was associated with a lower risk of ischemic stroke (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.19-0.58; P &amp;lt; .001) compared with the control group. After LAAO, OAT was discontinued in 290 patients (67%), and the remaining 143 patients (33%) continued OAT after LAAO as an adjunctive therapy.Conclusions and RelevanceIn patients with nonvalvular AF and a prior thromboembolic event despite taking OAT, LAAO was associated with a lower risk of ischemic stroke compared with continued OAT alone. Randomized clinical trial data are needed to confirm that LAAO may be a promising treatment option for this population with a very high risk of stroke.

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 Background The extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator (EV ICD) has recently emerged as a new option for guideline indicated ICD patients. Previous study results from the EV ICD Pilot and Pivotal studies have demonstrated that the device can provide safe and effective therapy through chronic follow up. However, less has been reported regarding EV ICD lead removal. Purpose To report on the experience of lead removal in the EV ICD Pivotal Study. Methods The EV ICD Pivotal study was an international, prospective, single-arm, premarket clinical study. Patients with a class I or IIa indication for a single-chamber ICD per ESC or ACC/AHA/HRS guidelines were enrolled. Lead removal summary data was reported. Results Of 316 patients with an implant attempt, (74.7% male, age 53.8±13.1 years, 82% primary prevention, LVEF of 38.9%±15.4%, and NYHA Class I [23.7%] or II/III [65.5%]) 299 were fully implanted; 17 (5.7%) of which had a lead removal procedure (14–752 days post-implant, at 13 sites) with 3 of them having been implanted for more than 1 year. Reasons for lead removal were lead dislodgement (n=7), infection (n=5), high impedance alert due to lead fracture (n=2), pacing indication (n=1), cardiac transplant (n=1), or scheduled sternotomy (n=1). New EV ICD leads were placed in 7/17 (41.2%) patients. No serious adverse events were adjudicated as related to the explant procedures. There was a single observation of incision site haemorrhage, that was resolved with wound care. Additional details on lead removal will be included at the time of presentation. Conclusions The EV ICD lead was successfully removed 14-752 days post implant. Nine patients were re-implanted with either extravascular or transvenous systems. Longer term extraction data collection is ongoing through the EV ICD Pivotal study and through the EV ICD post-approval study and will continue to provide additional insights.Lead removed 24 months 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.