SUBCUTANEOUS ICD ITS JOURNEY FROM PROOF OF CONCEPT TO CURRENT EVOLUTION

Similar documents
Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (S-ICD)

Selecting the Best ICD for your Patient-SICD v. TV. Martin C. Burke DO, FACOI CorVita Science Foundation & Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam

Continuous ECG telemonitoring with implantable devices: the expected clinical benefits

What You Should Know About Subcutaneous and Transvenous ICD

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CLINICAL EXCELLENCE

La gestione di un paziente con ICD: come evitare gli shock inappropriati e prolungare la sopravvivenza del paziente. Maurizio Gasparini

Sudden Cardiac Death What an electrophysiologist thinks a cardiologist should know

IHCP bulletin INDIANA HEALTH COVERAGE PROGRAMS BT JANUARY 24, 2012

Subcutaneous ICD Emerging Role of Sudden Cardiac Death Prevention

HF and CRT: CRT-P versus CRT-D

Shock Reduction Strategies Michael Geist E. Wolfson MC

Syncope in Heart Failure Patients How to judge and treat? Jean-Claude Deharo, MD, FESC Marseilles, France

Tachycardia Devices Indications and Basic Trouble Shooting

Preventing Sudden Death Current & Future Role of ICD Therapy

INNOVATIONS IN DEVICE THERAPY:

Εκθορηίζεις απινιδωηή και θνηηόηηηα: μέθοδοι μείωζης ηων θεραπειών απινίδωζης

La strategia diagnostica: il monitoraggio ecg prolungato. Michele Brignole

ICD THERAPIES: are they harmful or just high risk markers?

Improving Patient Outcomes with a Syncope Center. Suneet Mittal, MD

Where Does the Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator (WCD) Fit In?

Ventricular tachycardia and ischemia. Martin Jan Schalij Department of Cardiology Leiden University Medical Center

ESC Stockholm Arrhythmias & pacing

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE

Arthur J. Moss, MD Professor of Medicine/Cardiology University of Rochester Medical Center Rochester, NY. DISCLOSURE INFORMATION Arthur J.

Programming of Bradycardic Parameters. C. W. Israel, M.D. Dept. of Cardiology Evangelical Hospital Bielefeld Germany

The patient with electric storm

Device Interrogation- Pacemakers, ICD and Loop Recorders. Dulce Obias-Manno, RN, MHSA, CCDS,CEPS, FHRS Device Clinic Coordinator, MHVI

Recurrent Implantable Defibrillator Discharges (ICD) Discharges ICD Storm

EHRA Accreditation Exam - Sample MCQs Cardiac Pacing and ICDs

Endpoints When Treating VT/VF in Patients with ICDs Programming Wojciech Zareba, MD, PhD

Early Experience with the Subcutaneous ICD

Sudden death as co-morbidity in patients following vascular intervention

Risk Stratification of Sudden Cardiac Death

Inappropriate electrical shocks: Tackling the beast

The Therapeutic Role of the Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Dysplasia

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

Arrhythmias Focused Review. Who Needs An ICD?

Defibrillation threshold testing should no longer be performed: contra

Who does not need a primary preventive ICD?

Antiarrhythmic Drugs and Ablation in Patients with ICD and Shocks

Policy #: 168 Latest Review Date: October 2014

The patient with (without) an ICD and heart failure: Management of electrical storm

Update on Device Innovation (S-ICD, Wearable, Leadless)

Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy for Heart Failure Patients according to Ischemic or Non-Ischemic Etiology in Korea

SPORTS AND EXERCISE ADVICE IN PATIENTS WITH ICD AND PPM

MEDICAL POLICY Cardioverter Defibrillators

2017 AHA/ACC/HRS Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death Guideline. Top Ten Messages. Eleftherios M Kallergis, MD, PhD, FESC

Atrial fibrillation: why it's important to make opportunities diagnosis in single chamber ICD patients

MEDICAL POLICY SUBJECT: IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER DEFIBRILLATOR

ICD: Basics, Programming and Trouble-shooting

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy in MADIT II Patients with Signs and Symptoms of Heart Failure

Management of Syncope in Heart Failure. University of Iowa

Primary prevention of SCD with the ICD in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy

Original Policy Date

Medical Policy An Independent Licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association

Do All Patients With An ICD Indication Need A BiV Pacing Device?

SUBCUTANEOUS IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER DEFIBRILLATORS

All in the Past? Win K. Shen, MD Mayo Clinic Arizona Controversies and Advances in CV Diseases Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, MFMER

Treatment of VT of Purkinje fiber origin: ablation targets and outcome

Dialysis-Dependent Cardiomyopathy Patients Demonstrate Poor Survival Despite Reverse Remodeling With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

The EFFORTLESS SICD Registry. The EFFORTLESS SICD Registry. SICD Implant 11/14/2016

Device Update Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) 박상원

MADIT Studies: CRT in the Non-LBBB Patient and Other Findings. Arthur J. Moss, MD

Remote Monitoring & the Smart Home of the 21 Century

Should ICD Replacement Be Performed in Octogenarians and/or Severe Comorbidities?

New generations pacemakers and ICDs: an update

Reducing unnecessary and inappropriate therapy in secondary prevention patients

Subclinical AF: Implications of device based episodes

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator is not enough: Ventricular Tachycardia Catheter Ablation in Patients with Structural Heart Disease

CRT-P or CRT-D From North Alberta to Nairobi

Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation. Saverio Iacopino, MD, FACC, FESC

Prophylactic ablation

Automatic External Defibrillators

How to treat Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy complications? C. Leclercq Departement of Cardiology Centre Cardio-Pneumologique Rennes, France

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator insertion for preventing sudden cardiac death

Interventional solutions for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure

ΔΠΔΜΒΑΣΙΚΗ ΘΔΡΑΠΔΙΑ ΚΟΙΛΙΑΚΩΝ ΑΡΡΤΘΜΙΩΝ

Εμφύτευση απινιδωτών για πρωτογενή πρόληψη σε ασθενείς που δεν περιλαμβάνονται στις κλινικές μελέτες

Journal of Arrhythmia

ICD Therapy. Disclaimers

Prevention of sudden cardiac death: With an emphasis on sudden cardiac death from ventricular arrhythmias

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Guidelines and Missing Groups

Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

Summary, conclusions and future perspectives

Devices and Other Non- Pharmacologic Therapy in CHF. Angel R. Leon, MD FACC Division of Cardiology Emory University School of Medicine

THE ROLE OF ICD THERAPY FOR PRIMARY PREVENTION Leonard Ganz, M.D. Pittsburgh, PA

State of the art of ICD programming: Lessons learned and future directions

20 ng/ml 200 ng/ml 1000 ng/ml chronic kidney disease CKD Brugada 5 Brugada Brugada 1

Clinical Results with the Dual-Chamber Cardioverter Defibrillator Phylax AV - Efficacy of the SMART I Discrimination Algorithm

Mahmoud Suleiman MD. On behalf of the Israeli ICD Registry Scientific Committee. Jan 11, National ICD Registry

Cardiac Devices CRT,ICD: Who is and is not a Candidate? Who Decides

Long-Term Prognosis in Recipients of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Secondary Preventions in Taiwan A Multicenter Registry Study

SUDDEN CARDIAC DEATH(SCD): Definition

13/09/2018. The ISSUE Studies. International (Italy & Spain) Study of Syncope of Uncertain Etiology. ISSUE study Pre-defined inclusion cathegories

Primary Therapy for High Risk LQT Patients Should Be an ICD

Syncope in patients with inherited arrhythmogenic syndromes. Is it enough to justify ICD implantation?

Invasive Risk Stratification: When is it needed?

Journal of the American College of Cardiology Vol. 37, No. 2, by the American College of Cardiology ISSN /01/$20.

Hospital and Physician Reimbursement Guide for ICD Implants

Sudden Cardiac Death and Asians Disclosures

Transcription:

SUBCUTANEOUS ICD ITS JOURNEY FROM PROOF OF CONCEPT TO CURRENT EVOLUTION Giovanni Luca Botto MD, FEHRA, FESC Electrophysiology Unit ASST Lariana, Como, Italy

Presenter Disclosure Information Research support: Boston Scientific, Medtronic; St., Bayer Healthcare, Gilead, Sanofi Advisory Board: Biotronik, Medtronic; St. Jude Medical, MSD, Sanofi, Bayer Healthcare, Boehringer, BMS, Pfizer, Daiichi/Sankyo Speaker Fees: Boston Scientific, Medtronic, St. Jude Medical, Sorin Group, Bayer Healthcare, Boehringer, BMS, Cardiome, Meda, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, Daiichi/Sankyo 01-2017

The S-ICD System The completely S-ICD was designed to avoid the complications associated with TV leads Limited pacing functionality with only transient post-shock, transthoracic pacing Studies have largely enrolled pts with niche indications and relatively few comorbidities from select, experienced centers

Summary of S-ICD Trials

S-ICD Pooled Results Demographics Pooled Study Implanted Patients (N=882) Primary Prevention low EF Primary Prevention Secondary Prevention Secondary Prevention 30% Other Primary Prevention 27% Primary Prevention low EF 43% Demographic N (%) Age (years) 50.3 ± 16.9 Male (n, %) 636 (72.5) Ischemic 330 (37.8%) Genetic 58 (6.7%) Idiopathic VF 40 (4.6%) Channelopathies 90 (10.3%) NYHA Classification II-IV 327 (37.5%) Atrial Fibrillation 143 (16.4%) Previous Defibrillator 120 (13.7%) MC. Burke. JACC. 2015; 65: 1605 15

S-ICD Pooled Results S-ICD and TV-ICD Spontaneous Conversion Efficacy S-ICD was as effective as TV-ICD in treating spontaneous arrhythmias Spontaneous Shock Efficacy First Shock Final Shock in episode S-ICD Pooled Data* 90.1% 98.2% ALTITUDE First Shock Study 1 90.3% 99.8% SCD-HeFT 2 83% PainFree Rx II 2 87% MADIT-CRT 3 89.8% LESS Study 4 97.3% * Excluded VT/VF Storm events S-ICD Pooled Data 100% Clinical conversion to normal sinus rhythm Of two unconverted episodes One spontaneously terminated after the 5th shock In the other episode, the device prematurely declared the episode ended. A new episode was immediately reinitiated and the VF was successfully terminated with one shock 1 Cha YM. Heart Rhythm 2013;10:702 708. 2 Swerdlow CD. PACE 2007; 30:675 700. 3 Kutyifa V. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2013;24:1246-52. 4 Gold MR. Circulation 2002;105:2043-2048.

S-ICD Pooled Results Complications There were zero endovascular infections or electrode failures which could be a factor in the observed low mortality rate 3 Zero endovascular infections or electrode failures The acute major complication rate was lower when compared to studies with TV-ICD, likely because S-ICD doesn t require vascular access 1,2 1 Peterson PN. JAMA 2013; 309: 2025-2034. 2 Van Rees JB. JACC 2011; 58: 995-1000. 3 Tarakji KG. Europace 2014; 16: 490-495

Safety and Efficacy of the Totally S-ICD 2-Y Results From a Pooled Analysis of the IDE Study and EFFORTLESS Registry Burke MC. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015

Inappropriate Shock Rate T-ICD vs S-ICD in Different Clinical Setting

SMART Pass Example SMART Pass OFF SMART Pass ON Difference in sensing when comparing SMART Pass OFF versus ON*.

Effortless Registry: 985 patients (follow-up 3.1 years) Boersma, HRS Meeting, Chicago May 2017

S-ICD Pooled Results Device Extraction for Pacing Extraction for pacing occurred in 0.4% of pts Reason Number (Percent) New Pacing Indication 1 (0.1%) ATP 1 (0.1%) Ventricular overdrive pacing 1 (0.1%) CRT Indication 1 (0.1%)

Tjong F, ACC 2016

S-ICD Post-Approval Study Evaluate A More Real World US Population Gold M. HRS Meeting, Chicago 2017

How Selecting to prioritize The Right patients Device for the For S-ICD? Each Patient Is Essential To Balancing Preserve The risks Long-term and benefits Benefit By Avoiding The Complications Of ICD Therapy S-ICD High Risk for lead-related and infectious complications TV-ICD Need for TV-ICD Pacing/sensing options J Poole & M Gold. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2013

S-ICD: Why Not? Diagram of the Study: N of Cases in Analysis Botto GL. on behalf of AIAC S-ICD Why Not Coll. Europace 2016; in press

S-ICD : Why Not? Result From AIAC Survey VDD-ICD 1% S-ICD 12% DC-ICD 44% ICD Type SC-ICD 43%

S-ICD: why not? AIAC Survey Parameter All patients (n=510) Transvenous ICD (n=448) Subcutaneous ICD (n=62) Male gender, n (%) 399 (78) 354 (79) 45 (73) Age, years 65±13 67±11 47±13* BMI classification * Underweight, n (%) 10 (2) 10 (2) 0 (0) Normal weight, n (%) 189 (37) 154 (34) 35 (56) Overweight and Obese, n (%) 311 (61) 286 (64) 25 (40) LV ejection fraction, % 36±11 34±10 49±14* New York Heart Association Class I, n (%) Class II, n (%) Class III, n (%) Class IV, n (%) 107 (21) 270 (53) 128 (25) 5 (1) 66 (15) 256 (57) 121 (27) 5 (1) * 41 (66) 14 (23) 7 (11) 0 (0) Secondary prevention of SCD, n (%) 123 (24) 91 (20) 32 (52)* Cardiomyopathy Ischemic, n (%) 286 (56) 268 (60) 18 (29)* Dilated, n (%) 97 (19) 94 (22) 3 (5)* Hypertrophic, n (%) 25 (5) 16 (4) 9 (15)* Hypertensive, n (%) 16 (3) 15 (3) 1 (2) Valvular, n (%) 20 (4) 18 (4) 2 (3) ARVD, n (%) 10 (2) 7 (2) 3 (5) Congenital, n (%) 5 (1) 4 (1) 1 (2) Other, n (%) 5 (1) 3 (1) 2 (3) Channelopathies/Other Idiopathic VF, n (%) 20 (4) 13 (3) 7 (11)* Brugada, n (%) 15 (3) 2 (0.4) 13 (21)* Long QT syndrome, n (%) 5 (1) 3 (1) 2 (3) Other, n (%) 6 (1) 5 (1) 1 (2) Coronary artery disease, n (%) 293 (57) 275 (61) 18 (29)* Myocardial infarction, n (%) 269 (53) 252 (56) 17 (27)* Coronary artery bypass graft, n (%) 97 (19) 92 (21) 5 (8)* PTCA, n (%) 194 (38) 181 (40) 13 (21)* Chronic kidney disease, n (%) 87 (17) 83 (19) 4 (6)* Diabetes, n (%) 134 (27) 127 (28) 7 (11)* Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, n (%) 82 (16) 80 (18) 2 (3)* BMI: Body Mass Index; LV: Left ventricular; SCD: Sudden Cardiac Death; ARVD: Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Dysplasia; VF: Ventricular Fibrillation; PTCA: Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty. *: p<0.05 versus Transvenous ICD.

S-ICD : Why Not? Result From AIAC Survey Unsuitability for S-ICD 250 200 45% 150 36% 100 50 0 Necessità di pacing (attuale/attesa) Necessità di ATP Possibile sviluppo (attuale o attesa) di indicazioni CRT Necessità di discriminatore atriale Inadeguatezza discriminatore ventricolare Dimensioni + scelta estetica Preferenza del paziente Costo Altro Botto GL. AIAC National Meeting, Bologna, march 2016

Current Single or Dual Chamber ICD Use Range of 50-90% use of dual chamber TV-ICD 100% 90% Proportion VR/DR (%) 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 90% 73% 51% DR VR 20% 10% 0% Leiden single center Danish cohort French DAI-PP n = 1345 n = 4189 n = 2566 1. de Bie MK. Heart 2013-2. Kirkfeldt RE. EHJ 2013-3. Fauchier L. Am J Cardiol 2015

Predictors of Bradycardia Pacing Need Development? 458 pts from MADIT II control arm 20 month median follow-up Baseline PR interval >200 ms significant predictor of subsequent PM/CRT implantation HR=3.07 95% CI: 1.24-7.57, p=0.02 Total PM rate is ~2% per year Need for PM in MADIT-II pts is low, especially in those with normal PR interval ( 200ms) Kutyifa V. Presented at ESC 2014; Abstract P434

S-ICD: why not? AIAC Survey Risultati - Controindicazioni all uso di S-ICD : necessità di pacing ECG all impianto N=510 ESC 2013 Malattia nodo del seno, n(%) 28 (5) I o IIb (*) Incompetenza cronotropa, n(%) 32 (6) # BAVII Mobitz II or BAV III, n(%) 8 (2) I BAVII Mobitz I, n(%) 5 (1) IIa (*) Altro 7 (1) IIa o IIb (*) *: in base sintomi; #: non raccomandato Indicazioni ESC Classe I: 36 (7%) Classe II: 12 (2%) Eur Heart J. 2013; 34: 2281-329. sviluppo indicazioni pacing ECG all impianto N=510 BAV I (PR>200ms), n(%) 61 (12) Durata PR, ms 174±37 PR >200ms: 61 (12%)

How Critical is ATP for the Avoidance of Shocks with TV-ICD? Recurrent fast MVT > 188 bpm (18/24 NID) in SCD-HeFT Over the course of the 45.5 mos of follow up 7% of all pts had more than a single episode of fast MVT This corresponds to a incidence of 1.8% per year it is unknown how many are self-terminable events, or would have been treated successfully b ATP 7% of patients at 45 months - 1.8% per year Poole J. NEJM 2008; 359: 1009 1017 Hellkamp A. Eur Heart J 2012: 33 (Supplement), 44, Abstract 505

Altitude Registry: 2345 1 st shock episodes Monomorphic VT Polymorphic and Monomorphic VT VF / Polymorphic VT AF/Aflutter Sinus Tachycardia or Supraventricular Tachycardia Non-sustained Noise/Artifact, Oversensing 14% 12% Episodes 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 0 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 >300 Detection Rate (bpm) Gillian, JCE 11

Avoiding Unnecessary Shocks for fast VT Duration Delay and Spontaneous Termination MADIT RIT (primary prev pts): same incidence of appropriate shocks despite large reductions in unnecessary ATP PainFree SST (secondary prev pts): same incidence of appropriate shocks despite reduction in unnecessary ATP Percent of pts with VT/VF Rx 1 Year Rate of Appropriate Therapy MADIT-RIT 1 year Kaplan Meier incidence shown for S-ICD and PainFREE SST. 1 year rate for MADIT-RIT annualized at an average follow-up of 1.4 years. Burke MC. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65: 1605 15.; Moss A. NEJM 2012; 367: 2275-2283; Auricchio A. Heart Rhythm, 2015; 12: 926 936

S-ICD : Why Not? Result From AIAC Survey 250 200 150 ESC Class I or II PR> 200ms MTV with syncope 6% 100 50 94% 0 Necessità di pacing (attuale/attesa) Necessità di ATP Possibile sviluppo (attuale o attesa) di indicazioni CRT Necessità di discriminatore atriale Inadeguatezza discriminatore ventricolare Dimensioni + scelta estetica Preferenza del paziente Costo Altro Botto GL. Europace in press

S-ICD : Why Not? Conclusion From AIAC Survey 7% 39% No pacing No ATP: 88% of ICD 54% 54% 39% CRT-D ICD S-ICD 7% CRT-D ICD S-ICD Botto G.L. Europace 2016 Dec 23 (modif)

S-ICD Therapy Take Away Points (1) Excellent efficacy (similar to TV-ICD) Low rate of inappropriate shocks Less complication rate? long term data to come Alternative to TV-ICD when no pacing or CRT, no ATP (Class IIa) difficult venous access, in young pts, or when risk of infection (Class IIb)

S-ICD Therapy Take Away Points (2) Indication to pacing need by TV-ICD should be reconsidered Cost issues and/or lack of reimbursement limit the uptake in daily practice Implantation-rates expected to significantly increase

Which Pts Would Benefit From A TV-ICD? Needs for Paradygm Shift S-ICD ELIGIBLE UNLESS. CRT INDICATION BRADY PACING INDICATION ATP FOR MVT INDICATION TV CRT-D TV ICD