Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

SCD 2014: Who Should Receive a Subcutaneous Defibrillator?

1,047 views

Published on

Jason Koontz, MD, PhD

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

SCD 2014: Who Should Receive a Subcutaneous Defibrillator?

  1. 1. Who Should Receive a Subcutaneous Defibrillator? Jason Koontz, MD, PhD Assistant Professor of Medicine Duke University Medical Center
  2. 2. Presenter  Disclosure  Informa2on   •  Biosense Webster (consulting < $10,000/yr) •  ChanRx (consulting < $10,000/yr)
  3. 3. Limitations of Transvenous ICDs •  •  •  •  •  •  •  Limited vascular access options Implantation risks Transvenous lead durability Hazards of lead extractions Risk of blood stream infections Inappropriate therapies Valve injury / tricuspid insufficiency
  4. 4. Requirements for an ICD System Effective Defibrillation Effective VT/VF Sensing •  Deliver adequate energy with an adequate safety margin to defibrillate •  Deliver this energy in a sufficiently short time to minimize syncope while still allowing the possibility of spontaneous termination •  Appropriate sensing of ventricular events at high rates while not oversensing non-ventricular/non-cardiac events •  Adequately distinguishing VT/VF events from supraventricular arrhythmias Safe ICD System Implantation
  5. 5. Effec&ve  Defibrilla&on   Configura&ons  tested  in  78  pt  –  Sept  2001  –  Feb  2004     G  Bardy,  et  al.  N  Engl  J  Med  (2010)  363:36-­‐44.    
  6. 6. Effec&ve  Defibrilla&on   TV-­‐ICD   s-­‐ICD   11.1  +  8.5   36.6  +  19.8   Compared  to  TV-­‐ICD  in  49  pt  –  April  2004  –  June  2005     G  Bardy,  et  al.  N  Engl  J  Med  (2010)  363:36-­‐44.    
  7. 7. Effec&ve  Defibrilla&on   M  Acha  and  D  Milan.  Circ  Arrhythm  Electrophysiol  (2013)  6:1246-­‐1251.     .  
  8. 8. Effec&ve  Defibrilla&on   •  US  IDE  Trial  –  IDE  trial  –  321  implants  with   808/809  successful  detec&ons  during   induc&ons  and  100%  conversion  of  successful   detec&ons   •  All  successfully  detected  induc&ons   successfully  converted   •  Chronic  cohort  –  71/74  DFT  success  at  6  mo  @   65J  
  9. 9. Effec&ve  Sensing   •  Primarily rate sensing (common to all ICDs) •  sICD Arrhythmia Discrimination Criteria –  Correlation between current beat and stored template – if < 50% favors VT –  Continuous beat-to-beat correlation – if polymorphic favors VT –  Continuous beat-to-beat QRS width – if wide QRS is noted during monomorhpic relationship, favors VT  
  10. 10. Effec&ve  Sensing   M.  Gold,  et  al.  J  Cardiovasc  Electrophysiol,  (2010)  23:  359-­‐366.  
  11. 11. Effec&ve  Sensing   M.  Gold,  et  al.  J  Cardiovasc  Electrophysiol,  (2010)  23:  359-­‐366.  
  12. 12. Effec&ve  Sensing   •  Sensitivity: 49/49 VT/VF events detected by sICD and •  Specificity: 50 SVT episodes –  sICD – 49 appropriately withheld –  TV-ICD (single v dual, SRD nominal v off) •  Medtronic 90-92% withheld •  Boston Scientific 70-82% withheld •  St Jude Medical 33-64% withheld M.  Gold,  et  al.  J  Cardiovasc  Electrophysiol,  (2010)  23:  359-­‐366.  
  13. 13. Effec&ve  Sensing   M.  Gold,  et  al.  J  Cardiovasc  Electrophysiol,  (2010)  23:  359-­‐366.  
  14. 14. Effec&ve  Sensing  
  15. 15. Effec&ve  Sensing   •  US  IDE  (321  pts)  –  38  with  inappropriate  shocks   –  15  pts     SVT  rate  >  condi&onal  zone   –  24  pts     oversensing  
  16. 16. Safety  of  Device   •  180  d  freedom  from  device  and  procedure   related  complica&ons  92.1%  (performance   goal  79%  for  approval)   •  18  suspected  infec&ons  –  4  resulted  in  device   removal  and  14  successfully  managed  as   superficial  infec&ons  
  17. 17. Current  sICD  Device   •  •  •  •  •  Parasternal  electrode  and  axillary  device   Output  of  80  J   Es&mated  bacery  longevity  ~  5  yr   Full  episode  storage  informa&on   Post-­‐shock  subcutaneous  pacing  available  
  18. 18. Current  sICD  Device   •  “Advantages”   –  No  transvenous  lead   –  Fluoroscopy  not  required  for  implant     –  Ultra  far  field  signals  for  arrhythmia  discrimina&on     •  “Disadvantages”     –  Post  shock  pacing  only  (No  Brady,  CRT,  ATP)     –  No  remote  monitoring     –  Larger  Pulse  generator    
  19. 19. Candidates for sICD Patients with risk of life threating arrhythmias without: •  Symptomatic bradycardia requiring pacing •  Cardiac resynchronization candidacy •  Recurrent VT responsive to ATP •  Incessant ventricular tachycardia
  20. 20. sICD “Prefenential” •  Individuals with increased risk for infection or vascular access difficulties for TV-ICD –  Prior TV-ICD blood stream infection –  End-stage renal disease on hemodialysis –  Prior vascular access issues/known occlusion –  Immunocompromise •  Consider for young patients with greater lifetime exposure to vascular access risk and risk of TV lead failure •  Consider for complex anatomy where lead delivery may be difficult/suboptimal
  21. 21. Thank  you      

×