A Single-Centre Experience of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator

Mengel, C.; Townsend, S.; Lam, K.; Lee, A.; Denman, R.; Haqqani, Haris M.

doi:10.1016/j.hlc.2018.06.228

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fourteen studies, 9 , 11 , 5–7 , 20 , 21 , 26 , 1–5 , 39 with at least a short-term follow-up (≥3 months), reported the incidence of this phenomenon in different S-ICD cohorts, ranging from 0.4% in the Austrian registry 15 to 8.3% in a small Polish cohort. 20 Aggregating data from these 14 studies, 31 of 2433 (1.2%) S-ICD recipients experienced device malfunction possibly due to AE during the reported follow-up.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Air entrapment as a potential cause of early subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator malfunction: a systematic review of the literature

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims Air entrapment (AE) has been reported as a potential cause of early inappropriate shocks (ISs) following subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation, but a cause–effect relationship is not always evident. This systematic review aims to analyse this phenomenon concerning implantation techniques, electrogram (EGM) features, radiologic findings, and patient management. Methods and results A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases following the PRISMA guidelines to obtain all available literature data since 2010 on S-ICD malfunctions possibly due to AE. The final analysis included 54 patients with AE as a potential cause of S-ICD malfunction. Overall, the aggregate incidence of this condition was 1.2%. Of ICD malfunctions possibly due to AE, 93% were ISs, and 95% were recorded within the first week following implantation. Radiologic diagnosis of AE was confirmed in 28% of the entire study cohort and in 68% of patients in whom this diagnostic examination was reported. At the time of device malfunction, EGMs showed artefacts, baseline drift, and QRS voltage reduction in 95, 76, and 67% of episodes, respectively. Management included ICD reprogramming or testing, no action (observation), and invasive implant revision in 57, 33, and 10% of patients, respectively. No recurrences occurred during follow-up, irrespective of management performed. Conclusions Device malfunction possibly due to AE may occur in ∼1% of S-ICD recipients. Diagnosis is strongly suggested by early occurrence, characteristic EGM features, and radiologic findings. Non-invasive management, principally device reprogramming, appears to be effective in most patients.

show abstract