537 Oversensing due to micro-air bubbles leading to inappropriate shocks in patient with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_G) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Seganfreddo ◽  
Michele Golino ◽  
Francesca Ceriani ◽  
Federica Matteo ◽  
Matteo Morello ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Early Period ◽  
Standard Technique ◽  
High Amplitude ◽  
Air Bubbles ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Inappropriate Shocks ◽  
Chest X Ray

Abstract Aims Subcutaneous air has been reported as uncommon cause of early device malfunction after implantation of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD). Methods and results A 43-year-old man was admitted to our hospital due to syncopal episodes. During a brain computed tomography (CT), he was resuscitated from cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation. Further investigations excluded ischaemic heart disease and cardiac magnetic resonance showed signs of prior myocarditis. After successful screening, an S-ICD was inserted for secondary prevention using the standard technique. The chest X-ray excluded acute post-procedural complications. Three days after implantation, he experienced two inappropriate shocks while conscious. Device interrogation revealed frequent high-amplitude signals followed by two shocks (Figure 1A and B) that could be interpreted as oversensing. During provocative maneuvers on the generator case, minimal and intermittent noise only on the secondary sensing vector was observed. Lateral and antero-posterior chest X-ray excluded subcutaneous air. However, the general agreement based on previous reports was that oversensing as observed in Figures 1A and B was typical for noise due to micro-air bubbles in the connection between the lead and the generator case. As a consequence, the sensing vector was successfully changed and no other inappropriate shocks were observed during follow-up. Conclusions Entrapped micro-air bubbles in the connection between the leads and the generator case can cause inappropriate shocks in the early period after S-ICD implantation. Timely recognition of this complication is important to prevent inappropriate shocks. It can occur shortly after the procedure even if the intra-procedural parameters were normal and chest X-ray excluded acute complications. As demonstrated in our case, the device can be reprogrammed using another sensing vector to solve these oversensing problems.

scholarly journals Undetected displacement of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead. importance of performing a chest X-ray during the first weeks post-implant: a case report

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose Apolo ◽  
Rodolfo San Antonio ◽  
Lluís Mont ◽  
José María Tolosana
Keyword(s):  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Ventricular Arrhythmias ◽  
Xiphoid Process ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Case Summary ◽  
Chest X Ray ◽  
Defibrillator Lead

Abstract Background In recent years, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implants have progressively increased and have been shown to be safe and highly successful, affording low reintervention rates regardless of the technique used. Case summary We present a case of S-ICD implantation in a patient diagnosed with idiopathic ventricular fibrillation. In the first follow-up consultation the patient showed appropriate detection parameters in the three configurations. However, chest X-ray revealed lead displacement with a tip migration from the manubrium area of the sternum to the xiphoid process. Discussion This case highlights the importance of performing at least one chest X-ray during the first weeks after S-ICD implantation, allowing the detection of a problem such as lead displacement, which can lead to undersensing of ventricular arrhythmias or S-ICD oversensing.

scholarly journals Remote heart failure management using a multiparameter implantable cardioverter-defibrillator alert: the multicentric RE-HEART registry

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
J De Juan Baguda ◽  
J.J Gavira Gomez ◽  
M Pachon Iglesias ◽  
L Pena Conde ◽  
J.M Rubin Lopez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Median Duration ◽  
Office Visit ◽  
Active Phase ◽  
Cardiac Resynchronization ◽  
Office Visits ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Clinical Events

Abstract Background The HeartLogic algorithm combines multiple implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)-based sensors into an index for prediction of impending heart failure (HF) decompensation. In patients with ICD and cardiac resynchronization therapy ICD remotely monitored at 13 Spanish centers, we analyzed the association between clinical events and HeartLogic alerts and we described the use of the algorithm for the remote management of HF. Methods The association between clinical events and HeartLogic alerts was studied in the blinded phase (from ICD implantation to alert activation – no clinical actions taken in response to alerts) and in the following active phase (after alert activation – clinicians automatically notified in case of alert). Results We enrolled a total of 215 patients (67±13 years old, 77% male, 53% with ischemic cardiomyopathy) with ICD (19%) or CRT-D (81%). The median duration of the blinded phase was 8 [3–12] months. In this phase, the HeartLogic index crossed the threshold value (set by default to 16) 34 times in 20 patients. HeartLogic alerts were associated with 6 HF hospitalizations and 5 unplanned in-office visits for HF. Five additional HeartLogic threshold crossings were not associated with overt HF events, but occurred at the time of changes in drug therapy or of other clinical events. The rate of unexplained alerts was 0.25 alert-patient/year. The median time spent in alert was longer in the case of HF hospitalizations than of in-office visits (75 [min-max: 30–155] days versus 39 [min-max: 5–105] days). The maximum HeartLogic index value was 38±15 in the case of hospitalizations and 24±7 in that of minor HF events. The median duration of the following active phase was 5 [2–10] months. After HeartLogic activation, 40 alerts were reported in 26 patients. Twenty-seven (68%) alerts were associated with multiple HF- or non-HF related conditions or changes in prescribed HF therapy. Multiple actions were triggered by these alerts: HF hospitalization (4), unscheduled in-office visits (8), diuretics increase (8), change in other cardiovascular drugs (5), device reprogramming (2), atrial fibrillation ablation (1), patient education on therapy adherence (2). The rate of unexplained alerts not followed by any clinical action was 0.13 alert-patient/year. These alerts were managed remotely (device data review and phone contact), except for one alert that generated an unscheduled in-office visit. Conclusions HeartLogic index was frequently associated with HF-related clinical events. The activation of the associated alert allowed to remotely detect relevant clinical conditions and to implement clinical actions. The rate of unexplained alerts was low, and the work required in order to exclude any impending decompensation did not constitute a significant burden for the centers. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

scholarly journals The Wearable Cardioverter/ Defibrillator: retrospective analysis of efficacy, safety and adherence

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Ehmsen ◽  
H Keller ◽  
C Stoellberger
Keyword(s):  
Systolic Function ◽  
Detection Algorithm ◽  
Shock Rate ◽  
Information Network ◽  
Independent Data ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Inappropriate Shocks ◽  
High Adherence

Abstract Background The use of the Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator (WCD) is recommended in national, European and American guidelines. However, there are almost exclusively data from the manufacturer's own data network. Independent data on the experience with the WCD are rare. Objective The aim of the retrospective study from one cardiologic department was to record efficiency, safety and compliance of the WCD. Patients and methods The study included all patients, to whom a WCD was described between 1.11.2010 and 1.5.2018 at one cardiologic department. Clinical data were obtained from the patients' records and the data about the WCD from the information network of the manufacturer. Results This study enrolled 66 patients, 51 males (77%) and 15 females (23%). The median age was 55 years (IQR: 45–63). They suffered from ischemic cardiomyopathy (n=33; 49%), dilated cardiomyopathy (n=12; 18%), myocarditis (n=7; 11%), explantation of an implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD; n=5; 8%) and other indications (n=6; 9%). The median wearing time of the WCD was 73 days (interquartile range-IQR: 39–126), with median daily use of 22.91 h (IQR: 19.58–23.61). Among 38 patients with LVEF ≤35%, LVEF improved to ≥35% in 19 patients (50%) during WCD therapy. Over 1600 times the WCD detected a VT falsely. Four patients (8%) suffered from 212 non-sustained VT. One patient was successfully shocked because of ventricular fibrillation (appropriate shock rate: 1.5%). There were no inappropriate shocks. All patients, who wore the WCD, survived and one patient died when he did not wear the WCD. At the end of therapy 32 patients (48%) received an ICD. In terms of wearing time and events (shocks, arrhythmias, artifacts) there were no significant differences between patients receiving ICD and those who did not receive an ICD. Patients who received an ICD had a significantly lower LVEF after 3 months than patients who did not receive an ICD. Conclusion Our data confirm, that the WCD is safe and that the patients, who wear a WCD, have a high adherence. More than half of the patients with reduced LVEF improved their systolic function during WCD therapy, thus obviating the need for ICD implantation. Questions about the effectiveness of the detection algorithm remained open. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Worldwide differences in primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator utilization and outcomes in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Nauffal ◽  
Peter Marstrand ◽  
Larry Han ◽  
Victoria N Parikh ◽  
Adam S Helms ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
Icd Therapy ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Implantation Rates ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Aims  Risk stratification algorithms for sudden cardiac death (SCD) in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and regional differences in clinical practice have evolved over time. We sought to compare primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation rates and associated clinical outcomes in US vs. non-US tertiary HCM centres within the international Sarcomeric Human Cardiomyopathy Registry. Methods and results We included patients with HCM enrolled from eight US sites (n = 2650) and five non-US (n = 2660) sites and used multivariable Cox-proportional hazards models to compare outcomes between sites. Primary prevention ICD implantation rates in US sites were two-fold higher than non-US sites (hazard ratio (HR) 2.27 [1.89–2.74]), including in individuals deemed at high 5-year SCD risk (≥6%) based on the HCM risk-SCD score (HR 3.27 [1.76–6.05]). US ICD recipients also had fewer traditional SCD risk factors. Among ICD recipients, rates of appropriate ICD therapy were significantly lower in US vs. non-US sites (HR 0.52 [0.28–0.97]). No significant difference was identified in the incidence of SCD/resuscitated cardiac arrest among non-recipients of ICDs in US vs. non-US sites (HR 1.21 [0.74–1.97]). Conclusion  Primary prevention ICDs are implanted more frequently in patients with HCM in US vs. non-US sites across the spectrum of SCD risk. There was a lower rate of appropriate ICD therapy in US sites, consistent with a lower-risk population, and no significant difference in SCD in US vs. non-US patients who did not receive an ICD. Further studies are needed to understand what drives malignant arrhythmias, optimize ICD allocation, and examine the impact of different ICD utilization strategies on long-term outcomes in HCM.

Abstract 5700: Worsening Renal Function and Arrhythmic Event in Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Patients with Nonischemic Heart Failure

Circulation ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 118 (suppl_18) ◽  
Author(s):  
Atsushi Takahashi ◽  
Tsuyoshi Shiga ◽  
Daigo Yagishita ◽  
Keisuke Futagawa ◽  
Naoki Serizawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Renal Function ◽  
Renal Dysfunction ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Shock Therapy ◽  
Electrical Storm ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Arrhythmic Event ◽  
Icd Shock

Purpose: Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) prevents sudden cardiac death in high risk patients with heart failure (HF). Worsening renal function (WRF) is associated with mortality in patients with myocardial infarction or HF, but its effect on lethal arrhythmia is unknown. We evaluated the influence of WRF on the occurrence of arrhythmic events in patients with nonischemic HF and ICD. Methods: A total of 286 nonischemic HF patients who underwent ICD implantation between 1990 and 2007 were studied. Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) was calculated using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease. Renal dysfunction was defined as eGFR <60mL/min/1.73m 2 and WRF was defined as 15mL/min/1.73m 2 per year. Differences in arrhythmia recurrences according to the eGFR and WRF were compared by Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Results: During a mean follow-up time of 2.2+/−1.0 years, 94 (33%) of 286 patients (mean age; 57+/−15 years, 72% male) experienced appropriate ICD shock therapy. There was a significantly higher cumulative rate of appropriate ICD shock therapy (p<0.05) and electrical storm (p<0.05) in patients with renal dysfunction than others. The patients with renal dysfunction at baseline experience WRF more frequently than other patients (53% vs. 23%, respectively, p<0.01). After correcting for age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), indication for ICD implantation, and use of beta-blockers in a Cox regression model, WRF was still an independent predictor of the time to first appropriate shock (HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.32–3.69, p<0.05) and electrical storm (HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.19 – 4.13, p<0.05). The result of subgroup analysis of 147 patients with low LVEF (LVEF<35%) indicated that the patients with WRF experienced electrical storms more frequently (p<0.05). Conclusion: WRF is associated with increased rate of arrhythmic event in nonischemic HF patients. Especially, those patients with low LVEF and WRF experience more frequent ICD shocks.

scholarly journals LEFT VENTRICULAR LEAD IMPLANTATION FOR DETECTION OF VENTRICULAR ARRHYTHMIAS IN PATIENT WITH IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER DEFIBRILLATOR AND LOW R WAVE IN RIGHT VENTRICLE

2021 ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Sudden Cardiac Death ◽  
Right Ventricle ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Cardiac Death ◽  
Ventricular Arrhythmias ◽  
Systolic Function ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Ventricular Lead

Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is a disease characterised as left ventricular (LV) or biventricular dilatation with impaired systolic function. Regardless of underlying cause patients with DCM have a propensity to ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) implantation for these patients results in significant reduction of sudden cardiac death [1-3]. ICD devices may be limited by right ventricle (RV) sensing dysfunction with low RV sensing amplitude. We present a clinical case of patient with DCM, implanted ICD and low R wave sensing on RV lead.

5968Adherence to driving restrictions among patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: insights from a nationwide register-linked survey study

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Bjerre ◽  
S M Rosenkranz ◽  
M Schou ◽  
C Jons ◽  
B T Philbert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Driving Restrictions ◽  
Driver's License ◽  
Icd Shock

Abstract Background Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) are restricted from driving following initial implantation or ICD shock. It is unclear how many patients are aware of, and adhere to, these restrictions. Purpose To investigate knowledge of, and adherence to, private and professional driving restrictions in a nationwide cohort of ICD patients. Methods A questionnaire was distributed to all living Danish residents ≥18 years who received a first-time ICD between 2013 and 2016 (n=3,913). During this period, Danish guidelines recommended 1 week driving restriction following ICD implantation for primary prevention, and 3 months following either ICD implantation for secondary prevention or appropriate ICD shock, and permanent restriction of professional driving and driving of large vehicles (>3.5 metric tons). Questionnaires were linked with relevant nationwide registries. Logistic regression was applied to identify factors associated with non-adherence. Results Of 2,741 questionnaire respondents, 92% (n=2,513) held a valid private driver's license at time of ICD implantation (85% male; 46% primary prevention indication; median age: 67 years (IQR: 59–73)). Of these, 7% (n=175) were actively using a professional driver's license for truck driving (n=73), bus driving (n=45), taxi driving (n=22), large vehicle driving for private use (n=54), or other purposes (n=32) (multiple purposes allowed). Only 42% of primary prevention patients, 63% of secondary prevention patients, and 72% of patients who experienced an appropriate ICD shock, recalled being informed of any driving restrictions. Only 45% of professional drivers recalled being informed about specific professional driving restrictions (Figure). Most patients (93%, n=2,344) resumed private driving after ICD implantation, more than 30% during the driving restriction period: 34% of primary prevention patients resumed driving within 1 week, 43% of secondary prevention patients resumed driving within 3 months, and 30% of patients who experienced an appropriate ICD shock resumed driving within 3 months. Professional driving was resumed by 35%. Patients who resumed driving within the restricted periods were less likely to report having received information about driving restrictions (all p<0.001) (Figure). In a multiple logistic regression model, non-adherence was predicted by reporting non-receipt of information about driving restrictions (OR: 3.34, CI: 2.27–4.03), as well as male sex (OR: 1.53, CI: 1.17–2.01), age ≥60 years (OR: 1.20, CI: 1.02–1.64), receipt of a secondary prevention ICD (OR: 2.2, CI: 1.80–2.62), and being the only driver in the household (OR: 1.29, CI: 1.05–1.57). Conclusion In this nationwide survey study, many ICD patients were unaware of the driving restrictions, and many ICD patients, including professional drivers, resumed driving within the restricted periods. More focus on communicating driving restrictions might improve adherence. Acknowledgement/Funding Danish Heart Foundation, Arvid Nilsson Foundation, Fraenkels Mindefond

scholarly journals The Relationship between Frailty Syndrome and Concerns about an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 1954
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Mlynarska ◽  
Rafal Mlynarski ◽  
Izabella Uchmanowicz ◽  
Czeslaw Marcisz ◽  
Krzysztof S. Golba
Keyword(s):  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Frailty Syndrome ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Questionnaire Score ◽  
Tilburg Frailty Indicator ◽  
Increased Sensitivity ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Frailty Indicator

Frailty syndrome may cause cognitive decline and increased sensitivity to stressors. This can result in an increased incidence of anxiety and depression, and thus, concerns about life with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). The aim of the study was to assess the impact of frailty syndrome on the increase in the number of device-related concerns after the implantation of an ICD. Material and methods: The study sample was a group of 103 consecutive patients (85 M; aged 71.6 ± 8.2) with an implanted ICD. The ICD Concerns Questionnaire (ICDC) was used to analyze their concerns about life with an ICD, and the Tilburg Frailty Indicator scale (TFI) was used to diagnose frailty. Results: In the group of patients with an ICD implanted, 73% had recognized frailty (83.3% women, 74.1% men); the average point value was 6.55 ± 2.67. The total ICDC questionnaire score for the patients with an implanted cardioverter defibrillator was 34.06 ± 18.15. Patients with frailty syndrome had statistically (p = 0.039) higher scores (36.14 ± 17.08) compared to robust patients (27.56 ± 20.13). In the logistic regression analysis, the presence of frailty was strongly associated with the total questionnaire score (OR = 1.0265, p = 0.00426), the severity of the concerns (OR = 1.0417, p = 0.00451), and device-specific concerns (OR = 1.0982, p = 0.00424). Conclusion: Frailty syndrome occurs in about 80% of patients after ICD implantation. The presence of frailty syndrome was strongly associated with concerns about an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document