Reduction in inappropriate therapies through device programming in subcutaneous implantable defibrillator patients: data from clinical practice

Abstract Aims In subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) recipients, the UNTOUCHED study demonstrated a very low inappropriate shock rate on programming a conditional zone between 200 and 250 bpm and a shock zone for arrhythmias >250 bpm. The extent to which this programming approach is adopted in clinical practice is still unknown, as is its impact on the rates of inappropriate and appropriate therapies. Methods and results We assessed ICD programming on implantation and during follow-up in a cohort of 1468 consecutive S-ICD recipients in 56 Italian centres. We also measured the occurrence of inappropriate and appropriate shocks during follow-up. On implantation, the median programmed conditional zone cut-off was set to 200 bpm (IQR: 200–220) and the shock zone cut-off was 230 bpm (IQR: 210–250). During follow-up, the conditional zone cut-off rate was not significantly changed, while the shock zone cut-off was changed in 622 (42%) patients and the median value increased to 250 bpm (IQR: 230–250) (P < 0.001). UNTOUCHED-like programming of detection cut-offs was adopted in 426 (29%) patients immediately after device implantation, and in 714 (49%, P < 0.001) at the last follow-up. UNTOUCHED-like programming was independently associated with fewer inappropriate shocks (hazard ratio 0.50, 95%CI 0.25–0.98, P = 0.044), and had no impact on appropriate and ineffective shocks. Conclusions In recent years, S-ICD implanting centres have increasingly programmed high arrhythmia detection cut-off rates, at the time of implantation in the case of new S-ICD recipients, and during follow-up in the case of pre-existing implants. This has contributed significantly to reducing the incidence of inappropriate shocks in clinical practice. Rordorf: Programming of the S-ICD Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/Identifier: NCT02275637

[1]  P. Lambiase,et al.  Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: long-term results of the EFFORTLESS study , 2022, European heart journal.

[2]  L. Ottaviano,et al.  Patient acceptance of subcutaneous versus transvenous defibrillator systems: A multi‐center experience , 2021, Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology.

[3]  M. Gold,et al.  Outcomes of two versus three incision techniques: Results from the subcutaneous ICD post‐approval study , 2021, Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology.

[4]  M. Casula,et al.  Subcutaneous versus Transvenous Implantable Defibrillator: an updated Meta-analysis. , 2020, Heart rhythm.

[5]  P. Lambiase,et al.  Subcutaneous or Transvenous Defibrillator Therapy , 2020, New England Journal of Medicine.

[6]  P. Lambiase,et al.  Primary Results From the Understanding Outcomes With the S-ICD in Primary Prevention Patients With Low Ejection Fraction (UNTOUCHED) Trial , 2020, Circulation.

[7]  C. Martignani,et al.  Serratus anterior plane block in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation: A case‐control analysis , 2019, Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology.

[8]  A. Capucci,et al.  Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation: An analysis of Italian clinical practice and its evolution. , 2018, International journal of cardiology.

[9]  A. Auricchio,et al.  Prospective blinded evaluation of a novel sensing methodology designed to reduce inappropriate shocks by the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. , 2018, Heart rhythm.

[10]  M. Biffi,et al.  Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator eligibility according to a novel automated screening tool and agreement with the standard manual electrocardiographic morphology tool , 2018, Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology.

[11]  A. Proclemer,et al.  Long Detection Programming in Single-Chamber Defibrillators Reduces Unnecessary Therapies and Mortality: The ADVANCE III Trial. , 2017, JACC. Clinical electrophysiology.

[12]  Pier D Lambiase,et al.  Implant and Midterm Outcomes of the Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Registry: The EFFORTLESS Study. , 2017, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  A. Auricchio,et al.  Inappropriate shocks in single-chamber and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2017, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[14]  S. Iliceto,et al.  Intermuscular Two‐Incision Technique for Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation: Results from a Multicenter Registry , 2017, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[15]  Pier D. Lambiase,et al.  The learning curve associated with the introduction of the subcutaneous implantable defibrillator , 2015, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[16]  M. Gold,et al.  Use of a discrimination algorithm to reduce inappropriate shocks with a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. , 2014, Heart rhythm.

[17]  A. Wilde,et al.  Two-incision technique for implantation of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. , 2013, Heart rhythm.

[18]  Wojciech Zareba,et al.  Reduction in inappropriate therapy and mortality through ICD programming. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  J. Healey,et al.  Wilkoff BL, et al. 2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on optimal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and testing. , 2017, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.