BackgroundSubcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) system has been proven to be an effective therapy for prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in selected patients. Although the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation (SIMPLE) trial has shown that defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing is not necessary for transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) systems, it is still recommended for S-ICD systems. We aimed to study the efficacy and safety of S-ICD implantation without DFT in our Heart Center with the comparison of S-ICD patients’ outcome to those with a single chamber TV-ICD without DFT in the same period.MethodsA retrospective analysis of patients underwent S-ICD without DFT from December 2014 to May 2016 with the comparison to single chamber TV-ICD patients implanted during the same period.ResultsThirty consecutive patients (23 males (76.7%); mean age 41 ± 13 years; mean left ventricular ejection fraction 30±12%) received a S-ICD for primary (25 patients, 83.3%) or secondary prevention (five patients, 16.7%) of SCD. During a mean follow-up of 710.6 ± 190 days, three patients received 38 appropriate ICD shocks (90.5%), and two patients received four inappropriate shocks (9.5%). There were two mortalities (6.7%): one cardiac and one non-cardiac. When compared to 30 consecutive who received a single chamber TV-ICD during the same period, there was no significant difference in mortality.ConclusionsImplantation of S-ICD using intermuscular approach without DFT seems to be safe and effective. Data from large S-ICD registries with long-term follow-up, and preferably randomized controlled studies, are needed to confirm this finding.

BackgroundPermanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation after cardiac surgery is required in 0.4-6% of patients depending on cardiac surgery type. PPM implantation in the early postoperative period may reduce morbidity and postoperative hospital stay. We performed a retrospective review of electronic medical records of adult patients with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), valve surgery, or both, over a 3-year period. Our aim was to identify predictors of PPM requirements and PPM dependency on follow-up in the current surgical era.MethodsAfter exclusion of patients with congenital heart disease, patients who already had a PPM or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), and patients with an indication for PPM or ICD before surgery, we identified 1,234 adult patients who underwent cardiac surgery between January 2007 and December 2009. A retrospective review of electronic medical records and pacemaker clinic data was performed.ResultsPatients’ mean age was 46.65 ± 16 years, and 59% were males. CABG was performed in 575 (46.6%) cases, aortic valve replacement in 263 (21.3%), mitral valve replacement in 333 (27%), and tricuspid valve replacement in 76 patients (6.2%). Twenty patients (1.6%) required implantation of a PPM postoperatively. Indications for PPM implantation included complete atrioventricular (AV) block in 13 (65%), sick sinus syndrome in three (15%), and atrial fibrillation (AF) with a slow ventricular rate in four (20%). Predictors for PPM requirement by multivariate analysis were the presence of pulmonary hypertension (P-HTN), reoperation, and left bundle branch block (LBBB) (P < 0.05). Late follow-up was available in 18 patients, at 84.5 ± 30 months. Eleven patients (61%) were PPM dependent on long-term follow-up.ConclusionsPatients at high risk for PPM implantation after cardiac surgery include those with P-HTN, reoperation, and pre-existing LBBB. Of those receiving a PPM, about one-third will recover at least partially at long-term follow-up. We recommend preoperative assessment for risk of requiring postoperative PPM, to counsel patients about this risk and early PPM implantation in high-risk patients who are PPM dependent after surgery.

BackgroundArrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dysplasia (ARVC/D) is an inherited cardiomyopathy characterized histologically by the replacement of ventricular myocardium with fibrous and fatty tissue, and clinically by ventricular tachycardia arrhythmias primarily of right ventricular (RV) origin. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is the only proven therapy to reduce mortality in ARVC/D patients. However, it has the risk of inappropriate anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) or shocks. This study aimed to assess the occurrence of appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies in ARVC/D patients who underwent ICD implantation in a single Cardiac Centre.MethodsRetrospective analysis of the data of patients with the diagnosis of ARVC/D based on the 2010 revised Task Force Criteria, who underwent ICD implantation in the Heart Centre, at King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center (KFSH&RC), Riyadh between January 1997 and May 2016. The clinical data and information about appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies were obtained from medical records with the review of the available intra-cardiac electrograms (EGMs).ResultsTwenty-two ARVC/D patients with ICD implantation (20 males (91%), mean age at ICD implantation: 32 ± 14 years). ICD was implanted for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in 15 patients (68.2%), and for primary prevention in 7 patients (31.8%). At mean follow-up of 9.4 ± 4.8 years, 11 patients (50%) had appropriate ICD therapies, and five patients (22.7%) had inappropriate ICD therapies. Out of 950 ICD therapies, 865 (91%) were appropriate (586 episodes of VT/VF treated with ATP (61.3%), and 279 episodes treated with shocks (29.37%)) and 85 (9.4%) were inappropriate (45 episodes treated with ATP (4.73%), and 40 treated with shocks (4.21%)).ConclusionARVC/D patients are at risk of VT/VF arrhythmias. ICD therapy is the only proven life-saving therapy in those patients. Most of ICD therapies in our patient’s population are appropriate, and ATP therapy is effective in terminating most of VT episodes. Although we do not have any patient with subcutaneous ICD, the high success rate of ATP suggests that transvenous ICD would be more appropriate in ARVC/D patients.

No abstract

No abstract