Lost bits: particle shedding with polyvinyl chloride intravenous administration sets

P. Subramanian,P. Ainsworth,J. Cassey,D. Phelan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-002-0753-z

2002-09-12

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: The pivotal study plan

Ian Crozier,David O'Donnell,Lucas Boersma,Francis Murgatroyd,Jaimie Manlucu,Bradley P Knight,Ulrika Maria Birgersdotter-Green,Christophe Leclercq,Amy Thompson,Robert Sawchuk,Sarah Willey,Christopher Wiggenhorn,Paul Friedman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.15190

Abstract:Background: Transvenous 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 design: The 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. 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 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.
The development of the extravascular defibrillator with substernal lead placement: A new Frontier for device-based treatment of sudden cardiac arrest

Amy E Thompson,Brett Atwater,Lucas Boersma,Ian Crozier,Gregory Engel,Paul Friedman,J Rod Gimbel,Bradley P Knight,Jaimie Manlucu,Francis Murgatroyd,David O'Donnell,Juergen Kuschyk,Paul DeGroot

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.15511

Abstract:Introduction: The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillato (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. Methods: This 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. Results: Extensive 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. Conclusion: The 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.
Infection management in the extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator: experience from the EV ICD Pivotal study

N Clementy,I Crozier,F Murgatroyd,L V A Boersma,J Manlucu,B P Knight,C Leclercq,U M Birgersdotter-Green,T Mattioni,D Sholevar,A Hersi,C Wiggenhorn,P Friedman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.746

IF: 39.3

2024-10-30

European Heart Journal

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.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
The cross-section of mutual fund fee dispersion

Giuliano Iannotta,Marco A. Navone

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBANKFIN.2011.09.013

2012-03-01

Abstract:
Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Sensing and Detection in a Large Global Population

Charles Swerdlow,Jeff Gillberg,Lucas V.A. Boersma,Jaimie Manlucu,Xusheng Zhang,Yan Zhang,Alfonso Aranda Hernandez,Varun Bhatia,Francis Murgatroyd

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2024.02.033

IF: 6.124

2024-05-17

JACC Clinical Electrophysiology

Abstract:Background The extravascular (EV) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) includes features to address sensing and arrhythmia detection challenges presented by its substernal lead location. Objectives In this study, the authors sought to evaluate sensing and detection performance in 299 patients discharged with an EV-ICD in the global pivotal study. Methods We reviewed and adjudicated all induced ventricular fibrillation (VF) episodes and spontaneous device-stored episodes that satisfied rate and duration criteria in a programmed ventricular tachycardia (VT)/VF therapy zone. Results At implantation, all EV-ICDs detected induced VF at the programmed sensitivity; 95.9% detected VF with a 3× safety margin. In follow-up, EV-ICDs detected all 59 VT/VF episodes that sustained until therapy. Of 1,034 non-VT/VF episodes, oversensing caused 87.9% and supraventricular tachycardia caused 12.1%. Therapy was withheld in 80.9%, aborted in 10.6%, and delivered in 8.5%. The most common causes of oversensing were myopotentials (61.2%) and P-wave oversensing (PWOS) (19.9%). Inappropriate shocks occurred in only 3.2% of myopotential episodes, but in 21.8% of PWOS episodes. Myopotential oversensing was more common with Ring-Can sensing ( P < 0.0001) and correlated with low R-wave amplitude ( P < 0.0001). PWOS occurred almost exclusively with Ring1-Ring2 sensing ( P = 0.0001) and began with transient decrease in R-wave or increase in P-wave amplitude ( P < 0.0001). In software emulation, a new PWOS discriminator significantly reduced total inappropriate detections. Conclusions In a global population, EV-ICD detected induced and spontaneous VT/VF accurately. Although discriminators withheld detection from most non-VT/VF episodes, inappropriate shocks were common. The most common cause was PWOS, which may be reduced by optimizing sensing at implantation and incorporation of the PWOS discriminator, which is now in the current device. (Extravascular ICD Pivotal Study [EV ICD]; NCT04060680 )

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Defibrillation success with a second generation intercostal extravascular ICD lead and commercially available left pectoral pulse generator

M C Burke,S Doshi,A Ebner,M Husby,A Marcovecchio,R Sanghera,D Scheck,M O'connor,R E Knops

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.369

IF: 39.3

2024-10-30

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Background/Introduction An investigational intercostal extravascular ICD lead has been developed for compatibility with commercially available pulse generators (PGs) that are placed in a left pectoral position in appropriate patients. This is substantially different from currently available extravascular ICD systems that require a custom PG placed in a left lateral position. Purpose The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate sensing and defibrillation of a second-generation intercostal, extravascular defibrillation lead (EV-ICD Lead) when used with currently available ICD PGs in a traditional left pectoral location. Methods Patients (n=20) undergoing an ICD implant or replacement underwent acute VF EV-ICD Lead connected to a left pectoral pulse generator. Induced VF was sensed and shocked using a 10 J safety margin, with subsequent higher-energy shocks delivered if required. Testing was also conducted in the left lateral pocket for a paired analysis with patients serving as their own control. Results Automatic sensing of acute, induced VF episodes from the left pectoral PG was successful in 19 of 20 patients (95%) whose pre-induction R-waves were greater than 1.0 mV and unsuccessful in one subject with a pre-induction R-wave of 0.3 mV. VF was successfully terminated with a 10 J safety margin in 17 of 20 (83%) patients, a 5 J safety margin in 2 of 20 (10%) patients and failed to convert one patient (BMI 32.9) from the pectoral pocket (however, conversion was successful from a lateral pocket with a 10 J shock, which provides a 30 J safety margin. With a left lateral ICD, 100% of patients demonstrated successful VF termination with ≥10 J safety margin. Conclusion(s) Sensing and defibrillation using a left pectoral PG location is feasible with a new intercostal, extravascular defibrillation lead.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Regional results of the lead evaluation for defibrillation and reliability (LEADR) trial

P Mason,P Sanders,B Hansky,P De Filippo,M Shah,M Shoda,A St Martin,G Crossley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.714

IF: 39.3

2024-10-30

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Introduction ICD/CRT-D patients are living longer, and interest in reliable leads with targeted placement is growing. The Lead EvaluAtion for Defibrillation and Reliability (LEADR) trial was designed to assess the novel small-diameter, lumenless, catheter-delivered, defibrillation study lead. The study lead is based on the SelectSecure SureScan MRI Model 3830 lumenless pacing lead delivered by catheter that has a simplified durable construction with improved long-term reliability (97.2% 12-year RV lead survival). Purpose The LEADR trial assessed the efficacy and safety of the novel defibrillation lead. Methods The global LEADR Pivotal trial (NCT04863664) enrolled patients with ACC/AHA/ESC guideline-directed indications for de novo implant of a primary or secondary prevention ICD/CRT-D. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were defibrillation success at implant and freedom from study lead-related major complications at 6-months, respectively. Results A total of 643 patients were successfully implanted (61.9±12.9 years, 26% female, 28.5±6.4 kg/m2 BMI, and 80.9% NYHA Class II) with the study lead placed in the desired RV location in 99.5%. The estimated freedom from study lead-related major complications was 97.1% at 6- and 12-months. Defibrillation testing was successful in 116/119 (97.5%) patients. The prespecified primary efficacy and safety thresholds (88% and 90%, respectively) were exceeded. There were zero study lead fractures and electrical measurements were stable through 12.7±4.8-month mean follow-up. Approximately 20% of patients were in Asia, 9% in Australia, 21% in Europe, and 50% in North America (Table). The estimated freedom from study lead-related major complications at 6- and 12-months per region were 96.2% in Asia, 100% in Australia, 96.4% in Europe, and 97.2% in North America (Figure), P=0.82 across regions. There were 19 study lead-related major complications (5 in Asia, 0 in Australia, 5 in Europe, 9 in North America), with the most common being lead dislodgement across regions. Defibrillation testing was successful in 116/119 patients with 33/33 in Asia, 32/32 in Australia, 7/8 in Europe, and 44/46 in North America, P=0.11 across regions. Among the 3 patients with unsuccessful testing, 2 (North America) remained in the study at physician discretion after successful conversion outside of protocol requirements, and 1 (Europe) was exited. Pacing capture threshold, pacing impedance, and R-wave amplitude were chronically stable across regions. Conclusion The LEADR Pivotal trial demonstrated the safety, efficacy, and reliability of the novel defibrillation lead, exceeding prespecified efficacy and safety thresholds. There were no notable differences in primary endpoints between regions. The trial has met its endpoints and ongoing follow-up will provide long-term performance. This trial demonstrated the ability to place the lead in targeted RV locations; a study of this lead for conduction system pacing is forthcoming.TableFigure

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Extended Long-Term Retrospective Multicenter Follow-Up

Fabian Schiedat,Benjamin Meuterodt,Joachim Winter,Magnus Prull,Assem Aweimer,Michael Gotzmann,Stephen O'Connor,Christian Perings,Thomas Lawo,Ibrahim El-Battrawy,Christoph Hanefeld,Johannes Korth,Andreas Mügge,Axel Kloppe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14080870

IF: 3.5083

2024-08-18

Journal of Personalized Medicine

Abstract:Background: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD). Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis are at a very high risk of infection from cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation as well as mortality. In the present study, we compared the long-term complications and outcomes between subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) and transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) recipients. Methods: In this retrospective analysis, we analyzed a total of 43 patients with ESRD requiring dialysis who received either a prophylactic S-ICD (26 patients) or a single right ventricular lead TV-ICD (17 patients) at seven experienced centers in Germany. Follow-up was performed bi-annually, at the end of which the data concerning comorbidities and, if applicable, reason for death were checked and confirmed with patients' general practitioner, nephrologist and cardiologist. Results: The median follow up duration was 95.6 months (range 42.8–126.3 months). Baseline characteristics were without noteworthy significant differences between groups. During follow-up (FU), there were significantly more device-associated infections (HR 8.72, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.18 to 12.85, p < 0.05) and device-associated hospitalizations (HR 10.20, 95% CI 1.22 to 84.61, p < 0.001), as well as a higher cardiovascular mortality (HR 9.17, 95% CI 1.12 to 8.33, p < 0.05), in the TV-ICD group. The number of patients requiring hospitalization for any reason was significantly higher in the TV-ICD group (HR 2.59, 95% CI 1.12 to 6.41, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in overall mortality (HR 1.92, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.15, p = 0.274). Conclusions: Our data suggest that, in this extended follow-up in seriously compromised renal patients on dialysis, the S-ICD patients have statistically fewer device infections and hospitalizations as well as lower cardiac mortality compared with the TV-ICD cohort.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services
Inappropriate Therapy and Shock Rates Between the Subcutaneous and Transvenous Implantable Cardiac Defibrillator: A Secondary Analysis of the PRAETORIAN Trial

Louise R.A. Olde Nordkamp,Shari Pepplinkhuizen,Abdul Ghani,Lucas V.A. Boersma,Juergen Kuschyk,Mikhael F. El-Chami,Elijah R. Behr,Tom F. Brouwer,Stefan Kaab,Suneet Mittal,Anne-Floor B.E. Quast,Willeke van der Stuijt,Lonneke Smeding,Jolien A. de Veld,Jan G.P. Tijssen,Nick R. Bijsterveld,Sergio Richter,Marc A. Brouwer,Joris R. de Groot,Kirsten M. Kooiman,Pier D. Lambiase,Petr Neuzil,Kevin Vernooy,Marco Alings,Timothy R. Betts,Frank A.L.E. Bracke,Martin C. Burke,Jonas S.S.G. de Jong,David J. Wright,Ward P.J. Jansen,Zachary I. Whinnett,Peter Nordbeck,Michael Knaut,Berit T. Philbert,Jurren M. van Opstal,Alexandru B. Chicos,Cornelis P. Allaart,Alida E. Borger van der Burg,Jose M. Dizon,Marc A. Miller,Dmitry Nemirovsky,Ralf Surber,Gaurav A. Upadhyay,Raul Weiss,Anouk de Weger,Arthur A.M. Wilde,Reinoud E. Knops,on behalf of the PRAETORIAN Investigators

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/circep.124.012836

2024-12-04

Circulation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology

Abstract:Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, Ahead of Print. BACKGROUND:Inappropriate therapy (IAT) is an undesirable side effect of implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Early studies with the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) showed relatively high inappropriate shock (IAS) rates. The PRAETORIAN trial demonstrated that the S-ICD is noninferior to the transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) with regard to the combined end point of IAS and complications. This secondary analyses evaluates all IAT in the PRAETORIAN trial.METHODS:This international, multicenter trial randomized 849 patients with an indication for ICD therapy between S-ICD (n=426) and TV-ICD therapy (n=423). ICD programming was mandated by protocol. All analysis were performed in the modified intention-to-treat population.RESULTS:In both groups 42 patients experienced IAT (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimated cumulative incidence, 9.9% and 10.1%, respectively; hazard ratio (HR), 0.99 [95% CI, 0.65–1.52];P=0.97). There was no significant difference in patients experiencing IAS between both groups (P=0.14). In the S-ICD group, 81 IAT episodes with 124 IAS and 1 inappropriate antitachycardia pacing occurred versus 89 IAT episodes with 130 IAS and 124 inappropriate antitachycardia pacing in the TV-ICD group. IAT episodes were most frequently caused by supraventricular tachycardias in the TV-ICD group (n=83/89) versus cardiac oversensing in the S-ICD group (n=40/81). In the TV-ICD group, a baseline heart rate >80 bpm (HR, 1.99 [95% CI, 1.05–3.76];P=0.03), a history of atrial fibrillation (HR, 2.66 [95% CI, 1.41–5.02];P=0.003), and smoking (HR, 2.46 [95% CI, 1.31–4.09];P=0.005) were independent predictors for IAT. A QRS duration >120 ms was an independent predictor for IAT caused by cardiac oversensing in the S-ICD group (HR, 3.13 [95% CI, 1.34–7.31];P=0.008). Post-IAS interventions significantly reduced IAS recurrence in both groups (P=0.046).CONCLUSIONS:There was no significant difference in IAT and IAS rates between the S-ICD and TV-ICD in a conventional ICD population, but causes and predictors for IAT differed between the devices. After the first IAS, an intervention significantly reduced the recurrence rate of IAS.REGISTRATION:URL:https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01296022.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Eight year Follow-Up Data on a Leadless Pacing System Real life experience in comparison to data of the prospective trial

S Winter,Q Nguyen,T Tuscher,S Fischer,J M Sinning

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.421

IF: 39.3

2024-10-30

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Introduction The Micra leadless intracardiac pacing system has been introduced and implemented into clinical routine in 2015, with its next generation MICRA AV in 2020. Feasibility, implantation safety, and acute success have been proven in the setting of controlled studies. Even apart from controlled studies, this new technology was beneficial for the individual patient. We aimed to report our single center follow-up (FU) data with a follow-up of up to six years. Methods In 292 patients (146 men; age: 81±5,7 y), Micra implantation was performed. Pacemaker interrogation was performed one to seven days after implantation and during FU (1; 3; 6, then every 6 month) up to 84 months. Data were assessed in a real-life setting and compared with existing data of a controlled prospective trial. Results The implantation was successful in all 292 attempts with only one pericardial effusion as major complication. During follow up there were two patients developing severe heart failure symptoms resulting in an implantation of a CRT-device and switching of the leadless pacemaker system. The average acute thresholds, sensing and impedance after system release were: 0.57±0.34V@0.24ms; 10,02±3,96mV and 752±1201Ohm. During follow up of up to 8 years neither, pacemaker failure, nor infections were reported. Measurements were reevaluated for long-term thresholds, sensing and impedance: 0.75 ± 0.38V @ 0.24 ms; 18,38 ±2,75 mV and 525 ± 102 Ohm. During eight years, no significant changes from acute to long-term measurements were detectable. In comparison to the controlled trial, our measurements of this real-life cohort were very similar. Conclusion In a real-life setting, the implantation of the leadless Micra system demonstrates a high rate of implantation success without major complications. We were also able to show stable long-term system parameters in the clinical setting of up to seven years of follow up with a very good battery longevity of about 12,3 years.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
First-Line Catheter Ablation of Monomorphic Ventricular Tachycardia in Cardiomyopathy Concurrent With Defibrillator Implantation: The PAUSE-SCD Randomized Trial

Roderick Tung,Yumei Xue,Minglong Chen,Chenyang Jiang,Dalise Y. Shatz,Stephanie Besser,Hongde Hu,Fa-Po Chung,Shiro Nakahara,Young-Hoon Kim,Kazuhiro Satomi,Lishui Shen,Erpeng Liang,Hongtao Liao,Kai Gu,Ruhong Jiang,Jian Jiang,Yuichi Hori,Jong-Il Choi,Akiko Ueda,Yuki Komatsu,Shuichiro Kazawa,Kyoko Soejima,Shih-Ann Chen,Akihiko Nogami,Yan Yao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.060039

IF: 37.8

2022-01-01

Circulation

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation as first-line therapy for ventricular tachycardia (VT) at the time of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation has not been adopted into clinical guidelines. Also, there is an unmet clinical need to prospectively examine the role of VT ablation in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, an increasingly prevalent population that is referred for advanced therapies globally. METHODS: We conducted an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial enrolling 180 patients with cardiomyopathy and monomorphic VT with an indication for ICD implantation to assess the role of early, first-line ablation therapy. A total of 121 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to ablation plus an ICD versus conventional medical therapy plus an ICD. Patients who refused ICD (n=47) were followed in a prospective registry after stand-alone ablation treatment. The primary outcome was a composite end point of VT recurrence, cardiovascular hospitalization, or death. RESULTS: Randomly assigned patients had a mean age of 55 years (interquartile range, 46-64) and left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% (interquartile range, 30%-49%); 81% were male. The underlying heart disease was ischemic cardiomyopathy in 35%, nonischemic cardiomyopathy in 30%, and arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy in 35%. Ablation was performed a median of 2 days before ICD implantation (interquartile range, 5 days before to 14 days after). At 31 months, the primary outcome occurred in 49.3% of the ablation group and 65.5% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.35-0.96]; P=0.04). The observed difference was driven by a reduction in VT recurrence in the ablation arm (hazard ratio, 0.51 [95%CI, 0.29-0.90]; P=0.02). A statistically significant reduction in both ICD shocks (10.0% versus 24.6%; P=0.03) and antitachycardia pacing (16.2% versus 32.8%; P=0.04) was observed in patients who underwent ablation compared with control. No differences in cardiovascular hospitalization (32.0% versus. 33.7%; hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.43-1.56]; P=0.55) or mortality (8.9% versus 8.8%; hazard ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.38-5.22]; P=0.62]) were observed. Ablation-related complications occurred in 8.3% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with cardiomyopathy of varied causes, early catheter ablation performed at the time of ICD implantation significantly reduced the composite primary outcome of VT recurrence, cardiovascular hospitalization, or death. These findings were driven by a reduction in ICD therapies.
Granular computing: Common practices and mathematical models

T. Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/FUZZY.2008.4630705

2008-06-01

Abstract:A very general formal model is proposed, it formalize almost all the known examples.
Initial implantation experience and short-term follow-up results of implanting leadless intracardiac transcatheter pacing system

梁静,赵迎新,史冬梅,李月平,于一,许晓晗,彭萍安,于淼,吴亚凤,孙铁男,周玉杰

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112148-20200305-00160

2020-01-01

Abstract:Objective:To explore the utility and safety of leadless intracardiac transcatheter pacing system.Methods:The study was a prospective observational study. Patients underwent Micra transcatheter pacing system in Beijing Anzhen hospital from December 2019 to January 2020 were enrolled. The baseline characteristics, platelet count, hemoglobin, anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet therapy, mean procedural time, average fluoroscopy time, number of deployment and electrical parameters (threshold, R-wave amplitude, impedance) were recorded. Ultrasonography of bilateral femoral and iliac veins was performed in all patients. Patients were followed including access site complication, adverse event and device evaluation at implant, hospital discharge, 1 and 3 months post-implant. R-wave≥5 mV, impedance between 400 and 1 500 Ω and threshold increase≤1.5 V than implant is considered a stable parameter. Femoral access site complications included hematoma, hemorrhage, pseudoaneurysm, and arteriovenous fistula. Adverse events included dislodgement, cardiac effusion/perforation and infection. Left ventricular end diastolic diameter and ejection fraction before and at 1 month after implant were reported.Results:Five patients were enrolled and pacemaker implantation was successful in all 5 patients. Patients were all males and the average age was (78.4±8.4) years. 2 patients received aspirin and clopidogrel therapy, 1 patient suffered from anemia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 1 patient. No stenosis, occlusion and vascular malformation of bilateral femoral and iliac veins was observed. The mean implant time was (39.6±1.7) minutes. The average fluoroscopy time was (9.2±1.3) minutes and the number of deployment was (1.40±0.55). Electrical parameters(threshold, R-Wave amplitude and impedance) were as follows: (0.40±0.10) V/0.24 ms, (10.80±3.72) mV and (822.00±162.23) Ω at implant; (0.45±0.07) V/0.24 ms, (13.04±2.41) mV, and (748.0±91.5) Ω at discharge, (0.40±0.06) V/0.24 ms, (14.26±4.11) mV, and (700.0±91.7) Ω at 1 month post-implant and (0.39±0.05) V/0.24 ms, 14.40±3.97 mV, and (682.0±96.0) Ω at 3 months post-implant, respectively. Threshold increase was ≤1.5 V compared to that during implantation, electrical parameters were acceptable and stable. There was no difference in LVEDD [(44.00±5.24) mm vs. (44.00±5.34) mm, P=1.000] and EF [(62.00±3.39)% vs. (62.20±3.56)%, P=0.861] before and 1 month post-implant. No incidence of access site complications, cardiac effusion/perforation, dislodgment or infections occurred during the 3 months. Conclusions:The leadless transcatheter pacemaker implantation performed in our study archived a high implant success rate and favorable safety profile as well as associated with low and stable pacing thresholds. The long-term safety and benefit of leadless pacemaker need to be evaluated in future clinical studies.
Trends in adoption of extravascular cardiac implantable electronic devices: the Dutch cohort

Breeman, Karel T. N.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12471-024-01892-6

2024-08-20

Netherlands Heart Journal

Abstract:Introduction Conventional implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and pacemakers carry a risk of pocket- and lead-related complications in particular. To avoid these complications, extravascular devices (EVDs) have been developed, such as the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) and leadless pacemaker (LP). However, data on patient or centre characteristics related to the actual adoption of EVDs are lacking. Objective To assess real-world nationwide trends in EVD adoption in the Netherlands. Methods Using the Netherlands Heart Registration, all consecutive patients with a de novo S‐ICD or conventional single-chamber ICD implantation between 2012–2020, or de novo LP or conventional single-chamber pacemaker implantation between 2014–2020 were included. Trends in adoption are described for various patient and centre characteristics. Result From 2012–2020, 2190 S‐ICDs and 10,683 conventional ICDs were implanted; from 2014–2020, 712 LPs and 11,103 conventional pacemakers were implanted. The general use has increased (S-ICDs 8 to 21%; LPs 1 to 8%), but this increase seems to have reached a plateau. S‐ICD recipients were younger than conventional ICD recipients ( p < 0.001) and more often female ( p < 0.001); LP recipients were younger than conventional pacemaker recipients ( p < 0.001) and more often male ( p = 0.03). Both S‐ICDs and LPs were mainly implanted in high-volume centres with cardiothoracic surgery on-site, although over time S‐ICDs were increasingly implanted in centres without cardiothoracic surgery ( p < 0.001). Conclusion This nationwide study demonstrated a relatively quick adoption of innovative EVDs with a plateau after approximately 4 years. S‐ICD use is especially high in younger patients. EVDs are mainly implanted in high-volume centres with cardiothoracic surgery back-up, but S‐ICD use is expanding beyond those centres.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Doppler ultrasonographic detection of nutcracker syndrome in a young child with intussusception: a case report.

J. Shin,S. M. Lee,Jee-Min Park,Y. Shin,J. S. Lee,Myung-Joon Kim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/080352535797

2005-10-01

Acta Paediatrica

Abstract:UNLABELLED We report on a 2-y-old male with intussusception accompanying nutcracker syndrome detected by renal Doppler ultrasound. Renal Doppler ultrasound revealed a significant difference in the peak velocity between the hilar and aortomesenteric portions of the left renal vein. CONCLUSION Renal Doppler ultrasound has been very useful and effective in detecting nutcracker syndrome in a young child.
Feasibility of entirely subcutaneous ICD™ systems in patients with coronary artery disease

Kevin Willy,Markus Bettin,Florian Reinke,Nils Bögeholz,Christian Ellermann,Benjamin Rath,Patrick Leitz,Julia Köbe,Lars Eckardt,Gerrit Frommeyer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-019-01455-5

Abstract:Background: The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD™) is an important advance in device therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Although current guidelines recommend S-ICD™ use, long-term data are still limited, especially in subgroups. Among several cardiac diseases that prone to SCD, coronary artery disease (CAD) carries several peculiarities that may hamper S-ICD™ therapy in this cohort. CAD can lead to an ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) with a reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and bundle branch blocks, which can be difficult for ICD sensing and discrimination of arrhythmia. CAD is mainly driven by risk factors such as diabetes mellitus, which put these patients at an elevated risk for infectious complications of cardiac devices. Furthermore, in ICM myocardial scars are frequent and are a potential substrate for ventricular tachycardia, which may be accessible for antitachycardia pacing. At the moment, it remains unclear if there is a value of S-ICD™ therapy in this subgroup. Therefore, this study analysed patients with CAD. Materials and methods: All S-ICD™ patients with CAD as the main indication for ICD implantation (n = 45 patients) in our large-scaled single-center S-ICD™ registry (n = 249 patients) were included in this study. Baseline characteristics, appropriate and inappropriate shocks, and complications were documented in a mean follow-up of 22.5 ± 8.3 months. Results: Primary prevention of SCD was the indication for implantation of an S-ICD™ in 28 patients (62%). Of all 45 patients with an overall mean age of 58.1 ± 11.4 years, 40 were male (88%). The mean LVEF was 37.7 ± 12.6%. Three episodes of ventricular arrhythmia (one monomorphic, one polymorphic, one ventricular fibrillation) were adequately terminated in three patients (7%). In only one patient, oversensing resulting in an inappropriate shock was observed, which could be managed by changing the sensing vector. 15 of the examined 45 patients previously had a transvenous ICD, which was explanted due to system-related infections. In only two patients, S-ICD™ was changed to transvenous ICD because of the need of antibradycardia stimulation. There were no S-ICD™ system-related infections. Conclusion: The S-ICD™ seems to be a valuable option for the prevention of SCD in CAD patients. Patients with systemic infections of a transvenous ICD and, therefore, a need for an alternative might benefit from the absence of intracardiac leads as the S-ICD™ is safe and works flawlessly in these patients. Inadequate shock delivery was very rare, while every episode of ventricular arrhythmia was terminated by the first shock.
Real world battery longevity of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD)

W Van Der Stuijt,J L Williams,A J Brisben,A T Koshiol,N Carter,C Madias,J E Ip,M S Link,S F Saba

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehad655.684

IF: 39.3

2023-11-01

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Abstract Background Subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillators (S-ICDs) protect against sudden cardiac death and avoid transvenous ICD lead complications. Objective To investigate S-ICD real-world battery longevity estimates and the impact of device parameters and advisory status. Methods Second and third generation S-ICD device longevity labeling is 7.3 years (yr) under normal use (e.g remote monitoring, pre-arrhythmia EGM storage, etc.). De-identified data from S-ICD devices implanted ≥3 months, with recent uploads from the patient devices to the LATITUDE system, were obtained in Nov 2022. For early to mid-life devices (15-100% battery life), longevity estimates were derived from storage time, implant time, and number of high voltage charges (HVC). For late-life devices, longevity estimates were calculated more accurately from battery voltage. Monte Carlo simulations estimated future HVCs. Multivariable maximum likelihood parameter models were used to analyze battery longevity determinants for the overall cohort and for patients who received >1 shock, assuming 1 shock due to conversion testing at implant. Variables were considered clinically significant if univariable difference and multivariable estimate’s magnitude were both ≥0.2 yr. Results are reported in median and interquartile range. Results The 32,678 EMBLEM devices had a 2.5 yr [1.2,4.1] device dwell-time with 8.7 yr [8.3,8.9] longevity estimate. Of these patients, 28,544 (87.3%) received ≥1 shocks and 11,480 (35.1%) received >2 shocks, including shocks delivered during conversion testing. Late life devices (n=3091, 9.5%) had a 5.2 yr [4.6,5.9] dwell time. For devices under the battery depletion advisory (n=13,900), the Monte Carlo model does not account for premature battery depletion (PBD), which is projected to impact 11.5% of advisory devices at 5 yrs. Longevity for PBD is 6.6 yr (Q4 2022 product performance report). While all variables except AF trend, AF episodes/yr, and post shock pacing statistically impact device longevity, only advisory status and number of device charges per yr impacted longevity by ≥0.2 yr (Figure, panel A). Patients who received >1 shock have 8.5 yr [8.0,8.8] longevity estimates, vs 8.8 [8.4,8.9] for patients with 0 or 1 shock. For patients with >1 shock, (Figure, panel B), only advisory status had a ≥0.2 yr impact on longevity in multivariable and univariable analyses. Dwell time, shocks delivered per yr, and system impedance software upgrade impacted longevity by only 0.1 yr in univariable analysis. Conclusion Median EMBLEM S-ICD longevity estimate is 8.7 years, which is longer than device labeling. Longevity is reduced by 0.26 years for each device charge. AF monitoring and post shock pacing did not impact device longevity significantly. Low and high voltage impedance as well as remote monitoring transmission impacted longevity by less than 0.1 years. These data are important to consider during shared decision-making.Device Longevity Predictors

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Lb-469803-01 Leadr In Defibrillation: Global Pivotal Trial Results Of A Novel, Small-Diameter Defibrillation Lead Designed For Reliability

George H. Crossley,Prashanthan Sanders,Bert Hansky,Paolo De Filippo,Maully J. Shah,Morio Shoda,Surinder K. Khelae,Travis D. Richardson,Francois Philippon,John S. Zakaib,Hung-Fat Tse,Darius P. Sholevar,Christoph Stellbrink,Rajeev K. Pathak,Goran R. Milasinovic,Jason S. Chinitz,Bernice Tsang,Michael B. West,Brian Ramza,Xuebin Han,Babak Bozorgnia,Roberto Carta,Tessa Geelen,Adam Himes,Megan Platner,Amy Thompson,Pamela K. Mason

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.04.033

IF: 6.779

2024-05-19

Heart Rhythm

Abstract:Defibrillation leads remain the weakest link of ICDs. As patients receiving devices are living longer and battery longevity increases, more reliable leads are needed. There is also growing interest in targeted RV lead placement. The LEADR Pivotal trial evaluated a novel, lumenless, 4.7Fr, catheter-delivered, defibrillation lead designed for reliability and targeted placement, based on the established SelectSecure SureScan MRI Model 3830 lumenless pacing lead that has a 97.2% 12-year RV lead survival.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Errata: the Cat's cradle Network

D. Pigott,J. Gammack,V. Hobbs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219649203000346

2003-09-01

Journal of Information & Knowledge Management

Abstract:Diarmuid Pigott is a PhD student at Murdoch University, researching computerised representations of art-historical opinion. He has undergraduate degrees in philosophy and library studies, and has nearly twenty years industry experience in systems design and development, most recently in the methods of knowledge modelling and management of online digital assets. His current interests are the significance in the history of ideas.
Equal performance of the subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator across all age groups in the PRAETORIAN trial

S Pepplinkhuizen,L R A Olde Nordkamp,J Kuschyk,H Bonnemeier,M F El-Chami,A De Weger,W Van Der Stuijt,L Smeding,N R Bijsterveld,S Richter,L V A Boersma,T R Betts,A A M Wilde,R E Knops

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.425

IF: 39.3

2024-10-30

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Introduction The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is developed to overcome lead-related complications and systemic infections, inherent to transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) therapy. In the PRAETORIAN trial the S-ICD proved to be non-inferior to the TV-ICD with regard to inappropriate shocks (IAS) and complications. However, the S-ICD is still mainly the preferred choice in young patients with a long life expectancy and therefore higher risk for lead-related complications. We aimed to evaluate the impact of age on complications and IAS between the S-ICD and TV-ICD. Methods The PRAETORIAN trial is an investigator-initiated, international, multicenter, randomized, two-arm noninferiority trial that was conducted in the United States and Europe. In total 849 patients with a class I or IIa indication for ICD therapy and no pacing indication were randomized to receive an S-ICD (N=426) or TV-ICD (N=423) and followed for a median of 49 months. We compare the occurrence of complications and IAS between increasing quartiles of age. Results Quartile 1 (Q1) consisted of 203 patients aged <55 (109 S-ICD, 94 TV-ICD), Q2 of 199 patients aged 55-62 (100 S-ICD, 99 TV-ICD), Q3 of 232 patients aged 63-69 (111 S-ICD, 121 TV-ICD) and Q4 of 215 patients aged ≥70 (106 S-ICD, 109 TV-ICD). Between the quartiles, there were no significant differences in occurrence of device-related complications (P = 0.32) or IAS (P = 0.66). In Q1, there were 15 (7.4%) complications (5 S-ICD, 10 TV-ICD) and 13 (6.4%) IAS (7 S-ICD, 6 TV-ICD), compared to 20 (10.1%) complications (7 S-ICD, 13 TV-ICD) and 17 (8.5%) IAS (9 S-ICD, 8 TV-ICD) in Q2, 22 (9.5%) complications (12 S-ICD, 10 TV-ICD) and 19 (8.2%) IAS (11 S-ICD, 8 TV-ICD) in Q3 and 18 (8.4%) complications (7 S-ICD, 11 TV-ICD) and 21 (9.8%) IAS (14 S-ICD, 7 TV-ICD) in Q4 (Figure 1.). Figure 2. shows forest plots of the hazard ratios per quartile. Conclusions The S-ICD performed equal to the TV-ICD with regard to IAS and complications between quartiles of age, making the S-ICD a good alternative across all age groups.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems

Lost bits: particle shedding with polyvinyl chloride intravenous administration sets

The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: The pivotal study plan

The development of the extravascular defibrillator with substernal lead placement: A new Frontier for device-based treatment of sudden cardiac arrest

Infection management in the extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator: experience from the EV ICD Pivotal study

The cross-section of mutual fund fee dispersion

Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Sensing and Detection in a Large Global Population

Defibrillation success with a second generation intercostal extravascular ICD lead and commercially available left pectoral pulse generator

Regional results of the lead evaluation for defibrillation and reliability (LEADR) trial

Extended Long-Term Retrospective Multicenter Follow-Up

Inappropriate Therapy and Shock Rates Between the Subcutaneous and Transvenous Implantable Cardiac Defibrillator: A Secondary Analysis of the PRAETORIAN Trial

Eight year Follow-Up Data on a Leadless Pacing System Real life experience in comparison to data of the prospective trial

First-Line Catheter Ablation of Monomorphic Ventricular Tachycardia in Cardiomyopathy Concurrent With Defibrillator Implantation: The PAUSE-SCD Randomized Trial

Granular computing: Common practices and mathematical models

Initial implantation experience and short-term follow-up results of implanting leadless intracardiac transcatheter pacing system

Trends in adoption of extravascular cardiac implantable electronic devices: the Dutch cohort

Doppler ultrasonographic detection of nutcracker syndrome in a young child with intussusception: a case report.

Feasibility of entirely subcutaneous ICD™ systems in patients with coronary artery disease

Real world battery longevity of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD)

Lb-469803-01 Leadr In Defibrillation: Global Pivotal Trial Results Of A Novel, Small-Diameter Defibrillation Lead Designed For Reliability

Errata: the Cat's cradle Network

Equal performance of the subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator across all age groups in the PRAETORIAN trial