Performance and Safety of the Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Through Long-Term Follow-Up: Final Results From the Pivotal Study
Paul Friedman,Francis Murgatroyd,Lucas V A Boersma,Jaimie Manlucu,Bradley P Knight,Nicolas Clémenty,Christophe Leclercq,Anish Amin,Béla Merkely,Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green,Joseph Yat Sun Chan,Mauro Biffi,Reinoud Elwin Knops,Gregory Engel,Ignacio Muñoz Carvajal,Laurence M Epstein,Venkata Sagi,Jens Brock Johansen,Maciej Sterliński,Clemens Steinwender,Troy Hounshell,Richard Abben,Amy E Thompson,Yan Zhang,Christopher Wiggenhorn,Sarah Willey,Ian Crozier,Extravascular ICD Pivotal Study Investigators
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.071795
IF: 37.8
2024-09-26
Circulation
Abstract:Background: Substernal lead placement of the extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (EV ICD) permits both defibrillation at thresholds similar to those seen with transvenous ICDs and effective antitachycardia 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. We aim 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, pre-market clinical study. Individuals with a class I or IIa indication for a single-chamber ICD per guidelines were enrolled. Freedom from major system- or procedure-related complications, as well as appropriate and inappropriate therapy rates, were assessed through 3 years using the Kaplan-Meier method. Anti-tachycardia pacing success was calculated using simple proportions. Results: An implant was attempted in 316 patients [25.3% female, 53.8±13.1 years old, 81.6% primary prevention, LVEF 38.9%±15.4%]. Of 299 patients with a successful implant, 24 experienced 82 spontaneous arrhythmic episodes that were appropriately treated with either 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. Antitachycardia pacing was successful in 77.1% (37/48) of episodes, and ATP usage 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 implant 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.