IMR Press / RCM / Volume 24 / Issue 7 / DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2407195
Open Access Review
S-ICD Implantation "Tips and Tricks"
Show Less
1 Department of Cardiology and Electrotherapy, Medical University of Gdansk, 80-210 Gdansk, Poland
2 1st Department of Cardiology with the Acute Coronary Syndromes Subdivision, Clinical Provincial Hospital No. 2, 35-310 Rzeszow, Poland
3 Medical College of Rzeszow University, 35-310 Rzeszow, Poland
*Correspondence: a_przybylski-65@wp.pl (Andrzej Przybylski)
Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 2023, 24(7), 195; https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2407195
Submitted: 9 March 2023 | Revised: 29 March 2023 | Accepted: 11 April 2023 | Published: 10 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Insights into Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices)
Copyright: © 2023 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.
This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Abstract

An implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was developed to provide protection against sudden cardiac death. Despite being effective in terminating ventricular arrhythmias, traditional transvenous ICDs appeared over time to have certain limitations related to the need for vascular access and the presence of foreign material inside the circulatory system (namely lead failure and infections). A subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) was developed to overcome those limitations and to provide prevention against sudden cardiac death from outside the cardiovascular system. Utilization of that modern method of treatment is constantly increasing worldwide, and new centers incorporate implantation of that system in their portfolio. This review aims to present the most relevant issues related to S-ICD implantation procedure, based on experience of the authors and an extensive literature search.

Keywords
implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
sudden cardiac death
1. Introduction

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is an established method used for prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Its role in the secondary prevention of SCD in cardiac arrest survivors is indisputable, and also the primary prevention in patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction widely employs ICDs [1]. The worldwide career of transvenous ICDs (TV-ICDs) relies on their high efficacy, a commonly known implantation technique and a relatively long history. But a TV-ICD has its Achilles heel - the lead. Possible lead-related complications include: lead failure, lead-dependent infective endocarditis, cardiac perforation, and venous thrombosis. Despite the growing worldwide experience in transvenous lead removal, those issues may and do negatively influence the prognosis of ICD recipients [2]. For that reason, a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) system has been invented and successfully introduced into clinical practice [3]. Being located exclusively in the subcutaneous tissue of the thorax, and having no direct communication with the cardiovascular system, it provides antiarrhythmic therapy without the risk of vascular and/or lead-related complications typical for TV-ICDs [4, 5]. The ongoing dissemination of that modern technology requires cardiac electrophysiologists to modify their habits, as well as to learn new concepts and implantation techniques, because the implantation procedure is for obvious reasons different from what they knew for TV-ICDs. In this review, based on extensive literature search and on our own experience, we intend to provide an in-depth description of S-ICD implantation procedure, and various tips and tricks, including some measures to avoid possible complications specific to that modality of treatment.

2. General Description of the S-ICD System

The S-ICD system, similarly to a TV-ICD, consists of a device can and a lead, but the lead is implanted in the subcutaneous tissue and has no contact with the venous system and the heart itself. The can is up to two times larger than in TV-ICDs, it measures approximately 8.3 by 6.9 cm and has a thickness of 1.3 cm, which results in a volume of 60 cubic centimeters, and it weighs 130 g. Therefore the patient’s body build has to be taken into account, as the implantation procedure of that relatively large device may be more challenging in very thin and small patients, including children. In those patients, the can may be more prominent on the lateral wall of the chest and might even have a tendency for rocking movements. The likelihood of local complications (lead or can erosion or decubitus) might be also higher in such cases [6]. Despite those concerns, S-ICDs have been successfully implanted in children over 8 years of age and over 38 kg of body mass [7], or with the body mass index (BMI) over 20 kg/m2 [6, 8]. The results of a recent meta-analysis may favor S-ICD over TV-ICD in the young population, but a trend towards a higher risk of pocket complications [9] raises concern and underlines the need for a meticulous surgical technique.

Arrhythmia detection of an S-ICD relies on the analysis of subcutaneously recorded electrocardiography (ECG)-like signals. As such, they have some characteristics of a surface ECG (vulnerability to record noise and muscular artifacts) and rely on the analysis of morphology of the signals, as opposed to the intracardiac signals recorded by TV-ICDs, being more binary in nature. The S-ICD system applies a detection algorithm to one of the three possible signal vectors. Those vectors are recorded between any two of the three available subcutaneous poles, being the can itself and two sensing rings on the lead. One ring is located close to the tip, and the other one is —14 cm proximally, just above the anchoring sleeve (the lead itself has 45 cm of length, only one length is available and has to fit all patients). The sensing vector is selected automatically by the device during optimization procedure after implantation (preceded by an automated analysis of all the signals in two body positions). It can be manually changed, which is not recommended by the manufacturer, unless necessary. The device is capable of delivering shocks of the energy up to 80 Joules. A form of post-shock pacing is available at 50 bpm for 30 seconds. It is not programmable (it can only be switched on or off), and it is executed by impulses between the coil and the can of the device (a concept similar to transcutaneous pacing, without direct physical contact with the heart). The system is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) conditional [10].

3. Qualification and Preoperative ECG Screening

Several issues have to be deliberated upon if we weigh implantation of an S-ICD system against the typical TV-ICD. Two main contraindications for an S-ICD are: the need for antibradycardia pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy (although in our opinion some individual exceptions are possible and will be discussed below) and the possible need for antitachycardia pacing (ATP) for ventricular tachycardia (VT), especially in patients with slow and stable VTs. Some clinical conditions speak in favor of S-ICD, namely the young age of a patient (or in other words — long life expectancy), a history of lead-related complications (repetitive lead failure), prior infective complications (either lead-related or pocket-related), chronic conditions that increase the risk of ICD infection (chronic local or systemic infections, immunosuppressive therapy, chronic steorid therapy, hemodialysis), and problematic vascular access (venous thrombosis, atypical venous anatomy, congenital heart disease). According to the current European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines, an S-ICD should be considered as an alternative to a TV-ICD in patients with an ICD indication when pacing therapy for bradycardia, cardiac resynchronization therapy, or ATP is not needed. That is a class IIa indication with level of evidence B [1]. The medical conditions listed above may theoretically justify the choice of S-ICD instead of TV-ICD, but rules for reimbursement are country-specific and may vary, therefore precise legal requirements and local regulations have to be carefully considered and obeyed in each case.

The next step of a decision-making path incorporates the so-called ECG screening. As mentioned above, the device has three sensing poles (two on the lead, one is the can itself) that are used to register three ECG vectors. The primary vector is recorded between the proximal ring of the lead (the so-called B sense ring) and the can. The secondary vector is recorded between the distal ring on the lead (the so-called A sense ring) and the can. And the third vector — alternate — is recorded between the distal and proximal sensing rings on the lead (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Schematic representation of the three sensing vectors available in the S-ICD system. S-ICD, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

Once the device is implanted, only one of those three vectors can be selected for permanent use and detection, which is an obvious limitation of the system. To check the chances of the system for appropriate detection, a preoperative analysis has to be undertaken to verify the eligibility of the ECG signals, that is the morphology of the QRS complex in simulated sensing vectors. That procedure was historically performed with a screening template applied to a printout of modified surface ECG leads, but nowadays it is routinely executed with an automated screening tool, being a proprietary software for ECG analysis implemented in the programmer of the device manufacturer (Boston Scientific). For that purpose, the standard adhesive ECG patches have to be placed on the skin over predicted locations of the device sensing poles (two on the course of the lead and one over the pocket), based on the observation and palpation of anatomical landmarks on the chest, aided with fluoroscopic verification (if necessary). Then the ECG leads of the programmer have to be attached according to the on-screen instructions: Left Leg (LL) lead — laterally on the chest, along the mid-axillary line in the fifth intercostal space, to match the future location of the pocket and the device can; Left Arm (LA) lead — 1 cm left from the xyphoid process of the sternum to match the future location of the lower (proximal) sensing ring on the lead; Right Arm (RA) lead — 14 cm above the previous one, to match the predicted location of the distal sensing ring of the lead. The software performs an analysis of ECG strips simulating three sensing vectors and decides whether they are “OK” or they “FAIL” the screening procedure. The result is displayed on-screen and can be saved for printout. The ECG screening is typically performed in two body positions — supine and upright. According to system specifications, at least one vector should be “OK” in all analyzed body positions. In our clinical practice, we qualify patients with at least two passing vectors (the same in both supine and standing body positions) to ensure any room for error, if vectors after implantation differ from preoperative screening. Some experts accept only one passing vector, but then it should be checked in more body positions (for example lying on both sides in addition to supine and upright). If screening is negative, alternative lead location (right parasternal) may be considered [11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. In specific situations (congenital heart disease, dextrocardia) different positions of the system (e.g., reversed right-to-left) have been described [16, 17, 18, 19], but if such a case is planned, the ECG screening should incorporate fluoroscopy to ensure the correct relation of S-ICD system components to the cardiac silhouette and location of the heart within the chest in relation to anatomical landmarks [20]. On the other hand, the ECG screening may be dynamic, and repeated recordings are likely to give contradictory results [21]. In some specific clinical conditions [arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), Brugada syndrome (BS) and congenital heart disease (CHD)] the percentage of failed screening may be higher than in other groups of patients [22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28], and may require special considerations (like repeated screening during exercise in ARVC or during drug challenge in BS) [29, 30]. To make the issue even more complex, in some circumstances the change of QRS morphology may lead to misinterpretation of signals by S-ICD despite prior positive screening. That QRS morphology change may be due to pocket hematoma, cardiac ischemia, exercise, rate-dependent or transient bundle branch block, alcohol septal ablation in HCM, ST segment changes (in BS, electrolyte disturbances or after dialysis), cardiac pacing or lead migration [31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38].

Meticulous screening and qualification for S-ICD are of paramount importance, as inappropriate sensing and shocks (IAS) remain one of the main ICD-related adverse events. In the early years of development of the S-ICD system, IAS affected a significant percentage of patients, with T-wave oversensing being the most frequent reason. Those observations encouraged the manufacturer to modify the sensing algorithm, and as a result the Smart Pass filter was introduced. The filter reduces the amplitude of lower frequency signals (T-waves), selectively letting higher frequencies pass through (so that higher frequency signals such as R-waves and ventricular arrhythmias are not attenuated). The Smart Pass filter reduced the rate of IAS [39, 40], but they were not completely eliminated. In recently reported series, the IAS rate remained substantial, although not higher than in TV-ICDs, and it was not related to any clinical factors (such as age, body mass index, structural heart disease, left ventricular ejection fraction or sensing vector) apart from ARVC (where it was higher) [40, 41, 42].

Once the decision was made to implant an S-ICD system, appropriate implantation techniques have to be selected. There are several key technical issues to be considered before and during implantation, including the type of anesthesia, the number of skin incisions for lead tunneling and the location and type of the device pocket.

4. Anesthesia

The procedure may be performed in general, regional [43, 44] or local anesthesia [45]. In the center in Gdansk we typically implant S-ICD systems in general anesthesia, with laryngeal mask for mechanical ventilation, unless decided otherwise by an anesthesiologist. Performing implantations in general anesthesia allows to proceed directly to defibrillation testing (DFT). Moreover, if any problem arises that might require revision or repositioning of the system (although it is very rare with correct implantation techniques), it can be performed easily. Therefore the general anesthesia is usually a first choice for centers starting S-ICD implantation. Other centers prefer to use regional anesthesia in the form of a fascial plane block [46, 47, 48, 49]. That technique may be performed outside the operating room (in a preparatory room or even as a bedside technique), before the actual onset of the procedure, and therefore may increase the operational volume and speed up the workflow. But it requires specific skills from the anesthesiologist, and preferably the use of ultrasound imaging [50]. Local anesthesia is less commonly used, as the area of skin and subcutaneous tissue needing anesthetic infiltration is relatively large, and therefore a dose of local anesthetics and number of puncture sites limit the use of that method. According to available data, general anesthesia is the most prevalent method [51] but centers evolve over time and those rates may change.

5. The Lead

As mentioned above, preoperative planning should define the future locations of the system components. The anatomical landmarks may be marked on patient’s skin before implantation, and a dummy system may be used together with fluoroscopy to plan the position of the system and skin incisions. Fluoroscopy is especially useful in case of atypical anatomy of the chest and/or the heart. An example of preoperative planning and marking of the anatomical landmarks and skin incisions is presented in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Anatomical landmarks and planned incisions marked on patient’s skin.

The lead should be implanted parallel to the sternum, preferably along the left sternal margin. To obtain the best system impedance and optimal position for conversion of ventricular arrhythmias, the lead should be placed as deep as possible (close to the sternum and the pectoralis fascia), to leave the subcutaneous tissue and fat above. The final position of the lead should also be on the height of the cardiac silhouette. An example of correct lead placement is presented in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

An exemplary postoperative chest x-ray presenting an appropriate position of the S-ICD system. (A) Postero-anterior view. (B) Lateral view. Note the posterior location of the can, which is typically obtained with the intermuscular pocket. S-ICD, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

The S-ICD system implantation may be performed using a so-called two- or three-incision technique [52, 53]. One skin incision for the pocket is a must, so is the second one at the xyphoid region for lead tunneling and lead sleeve fixation. Therefore the decision has to be made only whether to perform the third incision for lead tunelling along the sternum at the upper parasternal region (leftwards from the sternomanubrial junction). The lead is tunneled from the pocket to the xyphoid region using the long stylet and a long peel-away sheath provided in the lead tunneling set. Then sutures for fixation of the suture sleeve (which in the current design of the lead is integrated with the lead body and cannot slide) have to be planned and placed in the xyphoid region. If the third incision was made, a bare tunneling stylet can be used to perform the tunnel along the left margin of the sternum, and the lead can be then dragged through the tunnel using suture strings (left at the cranial end of the tunnel after stylet removal). If the third incision is not performed, the lead has to be placed using the short peel-away sheath delivered over the short tunneling stylet from the tunneling set. In our experience, it is of uttermost importance to predefine the straight line for tunneling and to avoid rocking to the sides with a stylet during ist course along the sternum, as it might subsequently produce the twisting course of the lead. If the tunneling line is for any reason more lateral than the parasternal line, then the lead may run through the attachment of the pectoralis major muscle, and deviate slightly from the straight line after sheath removal. The stylet is then removed, and the lead is inserted into the sheath. In the following step the sheath has to be peeled away gently, so as not to dislocate or remove the lead along with the sheath. Holding the lead at the fixation sleeve region (for example with anatomical forceps) may aid against dislocation, but a second pair of hands (assisting physician or nurse) may facilitate that maneuver. Then the final position of the lead has to be attained, using pre-specified anatomical landmarks and previously prepared sutures. Before closing the para-xyphoid incision, we typically pour some saline into the wound using a syringe (but not under pressure into the lead tunnel), and gently push the skin down over the lead tunnel from the cranial end towards the incision site, to push away any excessive air (air bubbles are typically seen passing through the saline pond). Care has to be taken during that maneuver to avoid manual dislocation of the lead. When closing the wound, the sutures should not be pulled up (away from the patients body), as it might facilitate air entrapment around the lead. If for any reason the final lead position is not acceptable, or there was an early dislocation, we would advise conversion to the three-incision technique, as repetitive tunneling weakens the surrounding tissue and may increase the risk of subsequent lead dislocation. In such a case, the third incision allows for secure fixation with a suture at the distal end of the lead. As mentioned before, in case of any doubt concerning the final placement of the system components, fluoroscopy may and should be used for verification.

The initial choice between two- or three-incision technique is based on several considerations. The clinical outcomes seem to be comparable between those two techniques in terms of the rates of infection, electrode migration, inappropriate shocks and first shock efficacy, but the two-incison technique is more time-efficient [54]. There is also a report available of a single-incision technique [55], but that approach has not yet gained wider acceptance. The two-incision procedure typically produces a better cosmetic effect than the three-incision one, as it allows to avoid the upper wound at the sternomanubrial junction (the most exposed and visible). The remaining two wounds (i.e., the only two if the two-incision technique is applied) in female patients can be easily hidden beneath underclothes and therefore are more cosmetically acceptable. Patients with excessive subcutaneous tissue could benefit from the 3-incision technique, as it allows for more stable fixation if a thick layer of fatty tissue is present, although in one report the complication rate in obese patients was not significantly increased [56].

Another lead-related issue that should not be underestimated is the interaction with sternal wires in patients after cardiac surgery with sternotomy. Direct contact of sensing points (lead tip or proximal ring) results in oversensing of noise and inadequate interventions [36]. Therefore the lead tunnel should be more lateral to step aside from the sternal wires in those patients, and intraprocedural fluoroscopy may help to acsertain the lack of contact between sensing rings and the sternal wires. The device manual does not specify the minimal distance, but definitely any direct contact should be avoided. For the same reason, if sternotomy is planned or likely to occur, the lead course should allow for that. Cardiac surgeons should be aware of the potential presence of a parasternal lead, especially because S-ICDs are still less common than TV-ICDs and in some centers physicians other than electrophysiologists may be less acquainted with that type of device. If they are not aware of the lead presence, it may end in contact or even entrapped within sternal wires after cardiac surgery. That in turn may lead to inappropriate sensing and shocks, as well as render the lead irremovable. An example of wires touching the lead is presented in Fig. 4. The clinical outcomes of post-sternotomy patients implanted with an S-ICD are similar to the rest of S-ICD recipients [57].

Fig. 4.

Example of sternal wires touching the S-ICD lead. The patient (implanted elsewhere) presented to our center with inadequate interventions due to noise oversensing. (A) Postero-aterior view. (B) Lateral view. (C) Postero-anterior view, close-up of the lead tip in contact with a sternal wire. (D) Lateral view, close-up of the lead tip in contact with a sternal wire. S-ICD, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

Lead tunneling should be performed with both confidence and caution, as the inadvertently deviated course of the tunneling tool may lead to complications, for example if it passes under the sternum through the intercostal space. Such a trajectory might result in damage to the lung or — even worse — the heart [58, 59]. On the other hand, the deliberately substernal location of an S-ICD lead was reported as a measure to overcome unsuccessful DFT in S-ICD recipients [60, 61]. Such a technique definitely cannot do without a cardiac surgeon at least on stand-by or in the operating team.

The S-ICD lead has a robust structure, as it does not have a central lumen for a stylet. The overall lead fracture rate remains low (around 0.3%) [62], especially when contrasted with the failure rate of transvenous ICD leads.

A relatively new problem concerning the S-ICD lead is the so called “sense-B-noise issue”. Several patients were described to have a the possible system and lead malfunction manifesting as electrical noise in sensing vectors involving the lower sensing ring (i.e., primary and alternate vectors). It led to inappropriate shocks, and required at least reprogramming to a secondary vector or total system replacement, even in case of no apparent lead damage [63]. The nature of that phenomenon remains unclear and is under investigation.

6. The Pocket

In a typical setting, the device can is placed in the pocket located on the left lateral side of the chest. Preoperative planning with a dummy system allows for correct final position of its components in relation to the cardiac silhouette and individual anatomy of a patient. In most cases, the final position of the can is on or posterior to the left midaxillary line, at the level of 5th and 6th intercostal space. The precise location of the pocket underwent evolution with growing experience in S-ICD implantation. Initially, the pocket was created subcutaneously (mimicking the technique used before for TV-ICDs, but now in another location). Evolution of the implantation technique due to pocket-related complications led to a wider acceptance of the intermuscular technique, usually combined with the two-incision access [64, 65, 66, 67]. Subcutaneous location of the pocket, due to the size of the device, may lead to excessive skin tension, and subsequently — skin erosion and device extrusion [68]. Local pocket complications of S-ICDs, as opposed to TV-ICDs, may undergo attempts of conservative treatment with a high rate of success, especially in non-infective cases. The same applies to lead-related surgical problems [69, 70]. In our early experience we successfully treated a patient implanted elsewhere using a subcutaneous pocket, and presenting to our center with a threatening pocket erosion. Covering the device with a displaced latissimus dorsi muscle resulted in complete healing of the pocket [71]. Since then, the wide acceptance and use of the intermuscular technique reduced the surgical complications to a consistently low level [72]. In a recent propensity-matched comparison, intermuscular pocket was found to be superior to a subcutaneous one in reducing device-related complications and inappropriate shocks [73].

The surgical access for creating the pocket is typically achieved with an incision along the inframammary crease, adhering to the Langer’s lines of skin tension (see Fig. 2). Then the subcutaneous pocket would have typically been performed by dissection of the subcutaneous tissue over the muscular plane of the lateral chest, and the device secured to the facia of the serratus anterior muscle. Creating the intermuscular pocket requires dissection down to the muscular fascia, and then dorsally, until the front edge of the latissimus dorsi muscle is found. The crucial step is not to overlook the margin of that muscle. Then the latissimus dorsi muscle can be in most cases separated from the serratus anterior muscle with blunt dissection. The pocket is created between those two muscles, with the latissimus dorsi at least partially covering the device can. As mentioned before, that approach allows for the optimal position of the can, as judged by two factors: (1) the can is deep under the skin and close to the chest wall, i.e., with low or no fat tissue layer between the can and the rib cage, and (2) a relatively dorsal position of the can. Those two factors were found to increase the rate of successful DFT [74, 75]. The third pocket variant is a submuscular pocket, under the serratus anterior muscle. That type of pocket is used least frequently, although it may be applied if needed in specific cases [76].

There are several important considerations that have to be remembered during pocket creation and closure. First, the device has to be firmly secured to the wall of the chest (preferably to the muscular fascia), to avoid dislocation of the can, as it might change sensing vectors and lead to inappropriate interventions [77]. Second, a meticulous surgical technique and hemostasis are needed to avoid pocket hematoma, as it might affect sensing (the can is used for primary and secondary vectors) and efficacy of defibrillation. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy are associated with an increased risk of hematoma in case of S-ICD implantation. Interruption of anticoagulation without bridging should be considered, if possible [78, 79]. And third, the pocket has to be the right size. Too snug a pocket may increase the risk of skin erosion. Too loose — may facilitate encapsulation of air around the device can. The remarks considering air entrapment around the lead above apply also to the pocket. Filling the pocket with saline before closure may expell excessive air. Gentle pressure applied to the skin over the pocket during closure may be another possible measure to push air away. And, last but not least, when connecting the lead to the can, the screwdriver has to be inserted into the screw through the sealing plug to allow for free outflow of air from the connector during lead insertion. Failure to obey the last rule may also lead to noise sensing and inappropriate interventions. Air entrappment around various components of the system has been reported multiple times [80, 81, 82, 83]. It is not associated with any specific technique, and — unfortunately — cannot be eliminated completely [84]. The air is typically resorbed within several days. According to our experience, it may be reasonable to switch off the device after implantation and DFT (if performed), and switch it on again the next day, when the presence of an excessive amount of air has been excluded with a routine chest x-ray.

7. Defibrillation Testing

The manufacturer recommends DFT after implantation of the S-ICD system, unless contraindicated. In case of TV-ICDs, DFT has been largely abandoned, especially after the non-inferiority of such a scenario was confirmed in the cardioverter defibrillator implantation without induction of ventricular fibrillation: a single-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial (SIMPLE trial) [85]. The results of that study cannot and should not be translated into S-ICD routine. But current practice shows that in some patient series the DFT is skipped in many cases of first-time implantation and in even more cases of device exchange [86]. More and more attempts are made to completely eliminate DFT for S-ICDs, as described below.

DFT should be typically performed after implantation of the system and wound closure. General anesthesia is continued (if it was used for implantation) or started only for that step (if regional techniques were used for implantation). Ventricular fibrillation (VF) is induced by the in-built protocol of the device with an induction impulse. If appropriate sensing occurs, the device detects VF, loads the capacitor and delivers a programmed shock. The maximum energy output of the device is 80 J, and the value of 65 J is typically programmed for DFT to maintain a 15 J safety margin, although some reports prove that with correct implantation even lower values (20-40-50 J) can be efficient [87, 88, 89]. If patient’s arm was abducted for implantation, it should adducted back for DFT to avoid trauma during forceful muscle contraction occurring at VF induction [90, 91]. A successful 65 J shock with correct impedance (40–140 Ohm) ends the test. If that is not the case, the reversed polarity should be tested, provided that the impedance is in the acceptable range. If the impedance is out of range and/or the shock was not successful, the position of the system should be re-checked and corrected, if possible [92]. Reference impedance values given in the device manual are between 25 and 110 Ohm, values below 25 or over 200 Ohm trigger patient’s alert.

Clinical experience and digital modeling suggested that there are certain determinants increasing the probability of VF conversion, namely the posterior position of the generator, and as little fat as possible between the lead coil and the can, and respective muscular surfaces underneath [75, 93]. Following that, an S-ICD specific score (PRAETORIAN score) was developed to correlate the final position of the system with the probability of a successful DFT [74]. The score is based on the analysis of post-operative chest x-rays (dual view, posteroanterior (PA) and lateral), used to assess the location of the lead in relation to the sternum, as well as the position of the can in the postero-anterior aspect and in relation to the chest wall. The final value is adjusted for patient’s body mass index. The final score reflects numerically the “correctness” of the position of the system and the amount of fat tissue beneath its components. The value below 90 indicates a low risk, and above 150 - a high risk of DFT failure, respectively. A score was validated on an independent cohort of S-ICD recipients [94, 95], and it holds true even in obese patients [96]. Intraoperative calculation of the score was proved feasible [97]. But appropriate determination of the score is to some extent subjective, and may necessitate some form of training [98].

In patients with contraindications for a DFT, a 10 J test shock with no VF induction is considered a surrogate of DFT, as it allows for true high-voltage impedance measurement (and not its low-voltage approximation). That method cannot confirm appropriate VF sensing and detection, and the value of impedance measurement only is disputable [99, 100], as it may vary with the patient’s body composition and built, chest fluid content (e.g., pleural effusion) and device location. There are several reports available suggesting that DFT testing may be safely waived in S-ICD patients [101, 102], but more conclusive data are awaited from the PRAETORIAN-DFT trial, which was designed to investigate the possibility of substituting the DFT with PRAETORIAN score calculation only [103].

8. Coexistence with Other Devices

S-ICD systems, relying on the analysis of ECG-like farfield signals (as opposed to TV-ICDs, that analyze bipolar local intracardiac electrograms), are more prone to interference with any other devices and circumstances generating noise or alteration of the sensing signal. As mentioned before, in the early years of S-ICD therapy, T-wave oversensing leading to inappropriate interventions was a serious issue (reaching 7–15% of patients) [104, 105, 106, 107]. Later on, when the in-built filters and sensing algorithms were refined [108, 109], the incidence of inappropriate shocks decreased to the level comparable to TV-ICDs [5, 110]. Nonetheless, possible interaction with other devices remains a serious issue. Any implantable device containing magnets (like for example some insulin pumps) may theoretically induce electromagnetic noise sensed by S-ICD. More concern is raised by other devices, that operate delivering electrical impulses within the patient’s body.

Left ventricular assist devices were reported to cause electromagnetic interference and inappropriate shocks in S-ICD patients [111, 112, 113]. According to a recent systematic review, interference was recorded in the primary and secondary vectors in the majority of cases, and reprogramming to the alternate vector could potentially solve sensing issues [114].

Other devices that may interact with S-ICD include pacing systems for deep brain stimulation, cardiac contractility modulation systems, baroreceptor stimulators and vagus nerve stimulators. All of those devices were described in the context of possible interference [115, 116]. Some of them can be applied in selected patients [117, 118, 119, 120], but a case-by-case analysis and thorough investigation of any possible cross-talk is crucial in those patients, and should involve in-depth analysis with programmers for all implanted devices and various possible current outputs of the devices.

9. Coexistence with Transvenous Cardioverters-Defibrillators and Pacemakers

Typical indications for S-ICD include a history of infection of a transvenous system and its extraction. Implantation of S-ICDs in such a clinical setting was found to be feasible and safe in terms of further risk of infection [121, 122, 123, 124]. The need for resynchronization therapy, ATP and permanent pacing has to be considered before a decision is made to folow the S-ICD path. If non-infective indications for discontinuation of TV-ICD therapy occur (e.g., repetitive lead failure, failed extraction, no vascular access), a decision may be made to abandon a transvenous system in its location or the transvenous lead alone, and implant an S-ICD system in addition [125].

Some S-ICD patients may develop indications for permanent pacing or resynchronization therapy even if they were not present at the initial device choice. In such a situation, a decision to extract the S-ICD and convert to a transvenous pacemaker or ICD can be made. Alternatively, a combination therapy with a pacemaker and S-ICD may be attempted. The former idea is straightforward, but the latter has to be discussed in further detail. Another scenario of possible co-therapy with an S-ICD and a pacemaker is when a patient with pre-existing pacemaker requires an ICD, and conversion to a TV-ICD is not an option (e.g., in case of epicardial systems or leadless pacing). Of course those clinical settings may have numerous variants, but we will try to detail some of the possible patterns.

Many cases of successful S-ICD implantation were described in patients with pre-existing pacemakers [126, 127], but careful screening of paced rhythm is needed. Some pacing sites and modalities (septal right ventricle pacing, biventricular pacing, His-bundle pacing) may produce more S-ICD eligible QRS morphologies than others (apical right ventricle pacing) [128, 129, 130, 131]. Epicardial pacing systems, both conventional [36, 132] and resynchronization therapy ones [133], were also successfully co-implanted with S-ICDs. In all of the above situations, the decision to add an S-ICD to a pacemaker may be made after positive screening. If screening is negative, other solutions have to be applied. A more complex situation occurs, when a pacemaker needs to be added to a pre-existing S-ICD. In such a case, evaluation of the QRS morphology of the paced rhythm and its sensing by an S-ICD can be performed only after pacemaker implantation. In case of failed screening, the pacemaker cannot be left in place. To add even more complexity, if the paced rhythm interchanges with the intrinsic one, positive screening and appropriate sensing may be even less achievable, because then we need a positive result for both types of rhythm in one and the same vector in both body positions [134].

Epicardial pacing systems seemed to be a reasonable solution for S-ICD recipients who developed indications for pacing, because they allowed overcomig the pacing need without entering the cardiovascular system. But another option emerged in the recent years than can be used instead – leadless pacemakers (LP). LPs undergo fast epithelialization and are therefore less prone to infection. As such, they are sometimes used in case of lead-dependent infective endocarditis in pacing-dependent patients [135]. For the same reason they started to be considered as a good solution for S-ICD patients in need for pacing (being the lesser evil inside the heart compared to traditional transvenous pacemakers). Since the first report of such a combined system [136], several patients were reported worldwide to have good outcomes of such a therapy [137, 138, 139, 140].

Concomitantly with the above reports, the manufacturer of S-ICD undertook research to develop the proprietary combined S-ICD and LP system [141, 142]. That work is ongoing, and the system has been already implanted in humans [143], but the date of market release — being much awaited — remains unknown.

10. Removal of the S-ICD System

The need for S-ICD removal may occur in several circumstances. First, if indications develop over time for permanent cardiac pacing, ATP or cardiac resynchronization therapy, although the cumulative risk of conversion to TV-ICD is low (2.7% in a recent report) [144]. Second, in case of infection or erosion of the device that cannot be treated conservatively [70], although the rate of pocket and lead-related complications is lower for S-ICDs than TV-ICDs [5, 145]. And third, if the potentially reversible cause for S-ICD cured or was eliminated in rare cases (improvement of heart failure due to toxic cardiomyopathy or myocarditis, heart transplant).

Irrespective of the reason for S-ICD explantation, the procedure itself may be not as straightforward as expected. Although extraction of an S-ICD system is obviously easier than of a TV-ICD one, due to the lack of contact with the cardiovascular system, some tools and techniques used in transvenous lead extraction may also be needed. Simple traction is not always successful, additional skin incisions may be needed, and the use of mechanical sheaths and even rotational mechanical sheaths has been reported [146, 147, 148, 149, 150]. As mentioned before, lead entrapment within sternal wires should be excluded in patients after sternotomy before S-ICD removal is attempted.

11. Conclusions

S-ICD system is a valuable addition to our antiarrhythmic armamentarium. It may successfully replace a TV-ICD in many patient populations, reducing the risk of vascular and lead-related problems. To keep the rate of S-ICD specific complications low, and to replicate the results of clinical studies in everyday practice, an implanting physician may choose to apply the two-incision technique with intermuscular pocket. Future development of the system and integration with leadless pacing may broaden indications and increase the target population for that system.

Abbreviations

ARVC, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy; ATP, antitachycardia pacing; BMI, body mass index; BS, Brugada syndrome; CHD, congenital heart disease; DFT, defibrillation testing; HCM, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; IAS, inappropriate shock; ICD, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; LP, leadless pacemaker; SCD, sudden cardiac death; S-ICD, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; TV-ICD, transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; VF, ventricular fibrillation; VT, ventricular tachycardia.

Author Contributions

SB, MK and AP designed and wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to editorial changes in the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors have participated sufficiently in the work and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Acknowledgment

Not applicable.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
[1]
Zeppenfeld K, Tfelt-Hansen J, de Riva M, Winkel BG, Behr ER, Blom NA, et al. 2022 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: Developed by the task force for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Endorsed by the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). European Heart Journal. 2022; 43: 3997–4126.
[2]
Bongiorni MG, Kennergren C, Butter C, Deharo JC, Kutarski A, Rinaldi CA, et al. The European Lead Extraction ConTRolled (ELECTRa) study: a European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Registry of Transvenous Lead Extraction Outcomes. European Heart Journal. 2017; 38: 2995–3005.
[3]
Bardy GH, Smith WM, Hood MA, Crozier IG, Melton IC, Jordaens L, et al. An Entirely Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter–Defibrillator. New England Journal of Medicine. 2010; 363: 36–44.
[4]
Basu-Ray I, Liu J, Jia X, Gold M, Ellenbogen K, DiNicolantonio J, et al. Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Defibrillator Therapy: A Meta-Analysis of Case-Control Studies. JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 2017; 3: 1475–1483.
[5]
Nso N, Nassar M, Lakhdar S, Enoru S, Guzman L, Rizzo V, et al. Comparative Assessment of Transvenous versus Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Therapy Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. International Journal of Cardiology. 2022; 349: 62–78.
[6]
Silvetti MS, Pazzano V, Verticelli L, Battipaglia I, Saputo FA, Albanese S, et al. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: is it ready for use in children and young adults? A single-centre study. Europace. 2018; 20: 1966–1973.
[7]
Sarubbi B, Colonna D, Correra A, Romeo E, D’Alto M, Palladino MT, et al. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator in children and adolescents: results from the S-ICD “Monaldi care” registry. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. 2022; 63: 283–293.
[8]
Silvetti MS, Bruyndonckx L, Maltret A, Gebauer R, Kwiatkowska J, Környei L, et al. The SIDECAR project: S-IcD registry in European paediatriC and young Adult patients with congenital heaRt defects. Europace. 2023; 25: 460–468.
[9]
Vetta G, Parlavecchio A, Magnocavallo M, Valente D, Caminiti R, Polselli M, et al. Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators in children and young adults: A meta-analysis. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology: PACE. 2022; 45: 1409–1414.
[10]
Keller J, Neužil P, Vymazal J, Janotka M, Brada J, Žáček R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Europace. 2015; 17: 761–766.
[11]
Zumhagen S, Grace AA, O’Connor S, Löher A, Köbe J, Eckardt L, et al. Totally subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator with an alternative, right parasternal, electrode placement. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology: PACE. 2012; 35: e254–e257.
[12]
Wilson DG, Zeb M, Veldtman G, Dimitrov BD, Morgan JM. Left and Right Parasternal Sensing for the S-ICD in Adult Congenital Heart Disease Patients and Normal Controls. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology: PACE. 2016; 39: 282–290.
[13]
Okamura H, McLeod CJ, DeSimone CV, Webster TL, Bonnichsen CR, Grogan M, et al. Right Parasternal Lead Placement Increases Eligibility for Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease. Circulation Journal. 2016; 80: 1328–1335.
[14]
Bettin M, Dechering D, Frommeyer G, Larbig R, Löher A, Reinke F, et al. Right versus left parasternal electrode position in the entirely subcutaneous ICD. Clinical Research in Cardiology: Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society. 2018; 107: 389–394.
[15]
Arias MA, Pachón M, Sánchez-Iglesias I, Loughlin G, Martín-Sierra C, Puchol A, et al. Impact of routine right parasternal electrocardiographic screening in assessing eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2020; 31: 103–111.
[16]
Ceresnak SR, Motonaga KS, Rogers IS, Viswanathan MN. Right-sided subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement in a patient with dextrocardia, tetralogy of Fallot, and conduction disease. HeartRhythm Case Reports. 2015; 1: 186–189.
[17]
Monkhouse C, Koutsogeorgis I, Schilling R, Lambiase PD. Subcutaneous implantable defibrillator in dextrocardia secondary to Lobectomy. Clinical Case Reports. 2018; 6: 1727–1729.
[18]
González-Cordero A, López-Puebla J, Franqui-Rivera H. Implantation of a completely right sided subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator in a patient with situs inversus dextrocardia. Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal. 2019; 19: 72–74.
[19]
Wiedmann F, De Simone R, Rose P, Karck M, Gorenflo M, Frey N, et al. Case report of an S-ICD implantation for secondary prevention in a patient with complex congenital heart disease, dextrocardia, and situs solitus. European Heart Journal: Case Reports. 2022; 6: ytac253.
[20]
Galizia Brito V, Bibiloni Cladera A, Exposito Pineda MDC, Grande Morales C. Pre-implant screening guided by cardiac silhouette fluoroscopy: a way to increase eligibility for the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: a case report. European Heart Journal: Case Reports. 2020; 5: ytaa495.
[21]
Wiles BM, Morgan JM, Allavatam V, ElRefai M, Roberts PR. S-ICD screening revisited: do passing vectors sometimes fail? Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology: PACE. 2022; 45: 182–187.
[22]
Conte G, Kawabata M, de Asmundis C, Taravelli E, Petracca F, Ruggiero D, et al. High rate of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator sensing screening failure in patients with Brugada syndrome: a comparison with other inherited primary arrhythmia syndromes. Europace. 2018; 20: 1188–1193.
[23]
Maurizi N, Olivotto I, Olde Nordkamp LRA, Baldini K, Fumagalli C, Brouwer TF, et al. Prevalence of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator candidacy based on template ECG screening in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Heart Rhythm. 2016; 13: 457–463.
[24]
Sakhi R, Yap SC, Michels M, Schinkel AFL, Kauling RM, Roos-Hesselink JW, et al. Evaluation of a novel automatic screening tool for determining eligibility for a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. International Journal of Cardiology. 2018; 272: 97–101.
[25]
Lambiase PD, Gold MR, Hood M, Boersma L, Theuns DAMJ, Burke MC, et al. Evaluation of subcutaneous ICD early performance in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy from the pooled EFFORTLESS and IDE cohorts. Heart Rhythm. 2016; 13: 1066–1074.
[26]
Wang L, Javadekar N, Rajagopalan A, Rogovoy NM, Haq KT, Broberg CS, et al. Eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in congenital heart disease. Heart Rhythm. 2020; 17: 860–869.
[27]
Zormpas C, Silber-Peest AS, Eiringhaus J, Hillmann HAK, Hohmann S, Müller-Leisse J, et al. Eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in adults with congenital heart disease. ESC Heart Failure. 2021; 8: 1502–1508.
[28]
Wang W, Gasperetti A, Sears SF, Tichnell C, Murray B, Tandri H, et al. Subcutaneous and Transvenous Defibrillators in Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy: A Comparison of Clinical and Quality-of-Life Outcomes. JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 2023; 9: 394–402.
[29]
Migliore F, Bertaglia E, Zorzi A, Corrado D. Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator and Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy: The Importance of Repeat ECG Screening During Exercise Test. JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 2017; 3: 785–786.
[30]
Kamakura T, Wada M, Ishibashi K, Inoue YY, Miyamoto K, Okamura H, et al. Impact of electrocardiogram screening during drug challenge test for the prediction of T-wave oversensing by a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator in patients with Brugada syndrome. Heart and Vessels. 2017; 32: 1277–1283.
[31]
Halawa A, Gautam S. T wave oversensing in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator secondary to hematoma formation: A potential cause of early postimplantation inappropriate shocks. Journal of Arrhythmia. 2018; 35: 130–132.
[32]
Olde Nordkamp LRA, Brouwer TF, Barr C, Theuns DAMJ, Boersma LVA, Johansen JB, et al. Inappropriate shocks in the subcutaneous ICD: Incidence, predictors and management. International Journal of Cardiology. 2015; 195: 126–133.
[33]
van den Bruck JH, Sultan A, Plenge T, Seuthe K, Mödder T, Iliadis C, et al. Incidence of myopotential induction in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients: Is the oversensing issue really solved? Heart Rhythm. 2019; 16: 1523–1530.
[34]
Rudic B, Tülümen E, Fastenrath F, Röger S, Goranova D, Akin I, et al. Incidence, mechanisms, and clinical impact of inappropriate shocks in patients with a subcutaneous defibrillator. Europace. 2020; 22: 761–768.
[35]
Sousa MJ, Betts T. Inappropriate shocks from a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator due to oversensing during periods of rate-related bundle branch block. Journal of Arrhythmia. 2017; 33: 73–75.
[36]
Kempa M, Budrejko S, Sławiński G, Królak T, Lewicka E, Raczak G. Polish single-centre follow-up of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) systems implanted for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Kardiologia Polska. 2018; 76: 452–458.
[37]
Kooiman KM, Brouwer TF, Van Halm VP, Knops RE. Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Lead Failure due to Twiddler Syndrome. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology: PACE. 2015; 38: 1369–1371.
[38]
Camm CF, Rajappan K, Curson M, Tilling L. Twiddler’s syndrome with a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator presenting with an inappropriate shock: a case report. European Heart Journal. Case Reports. 2019; 3: 1–5.
[39]
Theuns DAMJ, Brouwer TF, Jones PW, Allavatam V, Donnelley S, Auricchio A, et al. Prospective blinded evaluation of a novel sensing methodology designed to reduce inappropriate shocks by the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Heart Rhythm. 2018; 15: 1515–1522.
[40]
Gulletta S, Gasperetti A, Schiavone M, Vogler J, Fastenrath F, Breitenstein A, et al. Age-related differences and associated mid-term outcomes of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: A propensity-matched analysis from a multicenter European registry. Heart Rhythm. 2022; 19: 1109–1115.
[41]
von Alvensleben JC, Dechert B, Bradley DJ, Fish FA, Moore JP, Pilcher TA, et al. Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in Pediatrics and Congenital Heart Disease: A Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society Multicenter Review. JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 2020; 6: 1752–1761.
[42]
Mori H, Sumitomo N, Tsutsui K, Fukunaga H, Hayashi H, Nakajima H, et al. Efficacy of SubcutAneous implantable cardioVErter-defibrillators in 18 year-old CHILDREN: SAVE-CHILDREN registry. International Journal of Cardiology. 2023; 371: 204–210.
[43]
Miller MA, Garg J, Salter B, Brouwer TF, Mittnacht AJ, Montgomery ML, et al. Feasibility of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation with opioid sparing truncal plane blocks and deep sedation. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2019; 30: 141–148.
[44]
Droghetti A, Basso Ricci E, Scimia P, Harizai F, Marini M. Ultrasound-guided serratus anterior plane block combined with the two-incision technique for subcutaneous ICD implantation. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology: PACE. 2018; 41: 517–523.
[45]
Romero J, Bello J, Díaz JC, Grushko M, Velasco A, Zhang X, et al. Tumescent local anesthesia versus general anesthesia for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. Heart Rhythm. 2021; 18: 1326–1335.
[46]
Ziacchi M, Bisignani G, Palmisano P, Scalone A, Martignani C, Elvira Mocavero P, et al. Serratus anterior plane block in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation: A case-control analysis. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2020; 31: 144–149.
[47]
Migliore F, De Franceschi P, De Lazzari M, Miceli C, Cataldi C, Crescenzi C, et al. Ultrasound-guided serratus anterior plane block for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation using the intermuscular two-incision technique. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. 2020; 57: 303–309.
[48]
Sadownik B, Nowakowski P, Michalak M, Andruszkiewicz P, Grabowski M. Regional anesthesia of the hemithorax for the implantation of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD). Kardiologia Polska. 2020; 78: 592–593.
[49]
Uran C, Giojelli A, Borgogna DA, Morello G, Marullo F, Iodice P, et al. Ultrasound-guided serratus anterior plane block combined with parasternal block in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation: Results of a pilot study. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology: PACE. 2020; 43: 705–712.
[50]
Elders J, AlHashimi H, Gomes M, Panhuizen I, van Kuijk S, Vernooy K. Subcutaneous ICD implantation under ultrasound-guided serratus anterior plane block: Single-center experience in the Netherlands. International Journal of Cardiology. Heart & Vasculature. 2022; 38: 100949.
[51]
Lenarczyk R, Boveda S, Haugaa KH, Potpara TS, Syska P, Jedrzejczyk-Patej E, et al. Peri-procedural routines, implantation techniques, and procedure-related complications in patients undergoing implantation of subcutaneous or transvenous automatic cardioverter-defibrillators: results of the European Snapshot Survey on S-ICD Implantation (ESSS-SICDI). Europace. 2018; 20: 1218–1224.
[52]
Knops RE, Olde Nordkamp LRA, de Groot JR, Wilde AAM. Two-incision technique for implantation of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Heart Rhythm. 2013; 10: 1240–1243.
[53]
van der Stuijt W, Baalman SWE, Brouwer TF, Quast AFBE, de Groot JR, Knops RE. Long-term follow-up of the two-incision implantation technique for the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology: PACE. 2020; 43: 1476–1480.
[54]
El-Chami M, Weiss R, Burke MC, Gold MR, Prutkin JM, Kalahasty G, et al. Outcomes of two versus three incision techniques: Results from the subcutaneous ICD post-approval study. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2021; 32: 792–801.
[55]
Darrat YH, Benn F, Salih M, Shah J, Parrott K, Morales GX, et al. Single incision technique for implantation of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology: PACE. 2018; 41: 1543–1548.
[56]
Frankel DS, Burke MC, Callans DJ, Stivland TM, Duffy E, Epstein AE. Impact of Body Mass Index on Safety and Efficacy of the Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator. JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 2018; 4: 652–659.
[57]
Al-Kofahi M, Adeola OG, Payne J, Mohammed M, Reddy YM, Dendi R, et al. Multicenter assessment of the outcomes of subcutaneous ICD implantation in patients with prior or future sternotomy. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology: PACE. 2023; 46: 100–107.
[58]
Morani G, Bolzan B, Tomasi L, Tomei R, Vassanelli C. Pitfalls in electrogram interpretation: Subcutaneous cardioverter defibrillator malfunction in Brugada syndrome. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology: PACE. 2017; 40: 1180–1183.
[59]
Yanagishita T, Sakamoto S, Yoshisako Y, Sasaki K, Nakatsuji T, Tamura K, et al. An Unexpected Complication of Subcutaneous ICD Implantation and its Successful Management. JACC: Case Reports. 2020; 2: 889–893.
[60]
Guenther M, Kolschmann S, Knaut M. Substernal lead implantation: a novel option to manage DFT failure in S-ICD patients. Clinical Research in Cardiology. 2015; 104: 189–191.
[61]
Boyle TA, Cohen J, Carrillo R. Substernal implantation of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in a patient with preexisting Hemodialysis Reliable Outflow graft. HeartRhythm Case Reports. 2016; 2: 412–414.
[62]
Gasperetti A, Schiavone M, Ziacchi M, Vogler J, Breitenstein A, Laredo M, et al. Long-term complications in patients implanted with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Real-world data from the extended ELISIR experience. Heart Rhythm. 2021; 18: 2050–2058.
[63]
Haeberlin A, Burri H, Schaer B, Koepfli P, Grebmer C, Breitenstein A, et al. Sense-B-noise: an enigmatic cause for inappropriate shocks in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Europace. 2023; 25: 767–774.
[64]
Ferrari P, Giofrè F, De Filippo P. Intermuscular pocket for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Single-center experience. Journal of Arrhythmia. 2016; 32: 223–226.
[65]
Migliore F, Allocca G, Calzolari V, Crosato M, Facchin D, Daleffe E, et al. Intermuscular Two-Incision Technique for Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation: Results from a Multicenter Registry. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology: PACE. 2017; 40: 278–285.
[66]
Winter J, Siekiera M, Shin DI, Meyer C, Kröpil P, Clahsen H, et al. Intermuscular technique for implantation of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: long-term performance and complications. Europace. 2017; 19: 2036–2041.
[67]
Migliore F, Mattesi G, De Franceschi P, Allocca G, Crosato M, Calzolari V, et al. Multicentre experience with the second-generation subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator and the intermuscular two-incision implantation technique. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2019; 30: 854–864.
[68]
Santarpia G, Polimeni A, De Rosa S, Sabatino J, Curcio A, Indolfi C. First case of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator extrusion. International Journal of Cardiology. 2015; 192: 19–20.
[69]
Brouwer TF, Driessen AHG, Olde Nordkamp LRA, Kooiman KM, de Groot JR, Wilde AAM, et al. Surgical Management of Implantation-Related Complications of the Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator. JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 2016; 2: 89–96.
[70]
Droghetti A, Pecora D, Maffè S, Badolati S, Pepi P, Nicolis D, et al. “Shift and cover technique”: conservative management of complications for the rescue of S-ICD subcutaneous implantable defibrillator systems. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. 2022. (Online ahead of print)
[71]
Kempa M, Muraszko-Kuźma M, Kołacz S, Budrejko S, Raczak G. First Polish experience in follow-up care of a patient with a subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD). Kardiologia Polska. 2014; 72: 1168.
[72]
Kempa M, Budrejko S, Tajstra M, Syska P, Lewandowski M, Fabiszak T, et al. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in Poland: Results of the Polish S-ICD Registry. Kardiologia Polska. 2023. (Online ahead of print)
[73]
Botto GL, Ziacchi M, Nigro G, D’Onofrio A, Dello Russo A, Francia P, et al. Intermuscular technique for implantation of the subcutaneous implantable defibrillator: a propensity-matched case-control study. Europace. 2023; 1423–1431.
[74]
Quast AFBE, Baalman SWE, Brouwer TF, Smeding L, Wilde AAM, Burke MC, et al. A novel tool to evaluate the implant position and predict defibrillation success of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: The PRAETORIAN score. Heart Rhythm. 2019; 16: 403–410.
[75]
Heist EK, Belalcazar A, Stahl W, Brouwer TF, Knops RE. Determinants of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Efficacy: A Computer Modeling Study. JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 2017; 3: 405–414.
[76]
Droghetti A, Locatelli A, Casiraghi B, Malacrida M, Arupi M, Ragusa M. Totally submuscular implantation of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: a safe and effective solution for obese or oversized patients. Clinical Case Reports. 2016; 4: 1009–1011.
[77]
Kiamanesh O, Larsen JM, Bashir J, Chakrabarti S. Mobile subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads to oversensing and inappropriate shocks. HeartRhythm Case Reports. 2019; 5: 371–373.
[78]
Sheldon SH, Cunnane R, Lavu M, Parikh V, Atkins D, Reddy YM, et al. Perioperative hematoma with subcutaneous ICD implantation: Impact of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology: PACE. 2018; 41: 799–806.
[79]
Evenson C, Saour B, Afzal MR, Knight B, Okabe T, Weiss R. Increased risk of hematoma with uninterrupted warfarin in patients undergoing implantation of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology: PACE. 2019; 42: 1111–1114.
[80]
Yap SC, Bhagwandien RE, Szili-Torok T, Theuns DAMJ. Air entrapment causing early inappropriate shocks in a patient with a subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator. HeartRhythm Case Reports. 2015; 1: 156–158.
[81]
Taguchi Y, Ishikawa T, Matsumoto K, Ogino Y, Matsushita H, Iguchi K, et al. An Inappropriate Shock Case Early after Implantation of a Subcutaneous Cardiac Defibrillator by Subcutaneous Entrapped Air. International Heart Journal. 2018; 59: 417–419.
[82]
Yang YC, Aung TT, Bailin SJ, Rhodes TE. Air Entrapment Causing Inappropriate Shock From a Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator. Cardiology Research. 2019; 10: 128–130.
[83]
Nishinarita R, Kishihara J, Matsuura G, Arakawa Y, Kobayashi S, Shirakawa Y, et al. Early inappropriate shock in a subcutaneous cardiac defibrillator due to subcutaneous air. Journal of Arrhythmia. 2019; 35: 682–684.
[84]
Ali H, Lupo P, Foresti S, De Ambroggi G, De Lucia C, Penela D, et al. Air entrapment as a potential cause of early subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator malfunction: a systematic review of the literature. Europace. 2022; 24: 1608–1616.
[85]
Healey JS, Hohnloser SH, Glikson M, Neuzner J, Mabo P, Vinolas X, et al. Cardioverter defibrillator implantation without induction of ventricular fibrillation: a single-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial (SIMPLE). The Lancet. 2015; 385: 785–791.
[86]
Migliore F, Viani S, Ziacchi M, Ottaviano L, Francia P, Bianchi V, et al. The “Defibrillation Testing, Why Not?” survey. Testing of subcutaneous and transvenous defibrillators in the Italian clinical practice. International Journal of Cardiology: Heart & Vasculature. 2022; 38: 100952.
[87]
Biffi M, Ziacchi M, Angeletti A, Castelli A, Massaro G, Martignani C, et al. Successful defibrillation verification in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients by low-energy shocks. Clinical Cardiology. 2019; 42: 612–617.
[88]
Quast AFBE, Baalman SWE, Van der Stuijt W, Wilde AAM, Knops RE. Minimal defibrillation thresholds and the correlation with implant position in subcutaneous implantable-defibrillator patients. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2019; 30: 2441–2447.
[89]
Biffi M, Bongiorni MG, D’Onofrio A, Manzo M, Pieragnoli P, Palmisano P, et al. Is 40 Joules Enough to Successfully Defibrillate With Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators? JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 2021; 7: 767–776.
[90]
Noheria A, Cha YM, Asirvatham SJ, Friedman PA. Shoulder joint dislocation as an unusual complication of defibrillation threshold testing following subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal. 2014; 14: 297–300.
[91]
Elders J, AlHashimi H. Left-Sided Humerus Fracture as an Unusual Complication of Defibrillation Threshold Testing Following S-ICD Implantation. JACC: Case Reports. 2020; 2: 255–257.
[92]
Singh P, Afzal MR, Weiss R. Perioperative considerations during implantation of the subcutaneous defibrillator: State-of-the-art review. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology: PACE. 2020; 43: 1451–1458.
[93]
Do K, Chang P, Konecny T, Carlson SK, Tun H, Huntsinger M, et al. Predictors of Elevated Defibrillation Threshold with the Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator. The Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management. 2017; 8: 2920–2929.
[94]
Francia P, Biffi M, Adduci C, Ottaviano L, Migliore F, De Bonis S, et al. Implantation technique and optimal subcutaneous defibrillator chest position: a PRAETORIAN score-based study. Europace: European Pacing, Arrhythmias, and Cardiac Electrophysiology: Journal of the Working Groups on Cardiac Pacing, Arrhythmias, and Cardiac Cellular Electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2020; 22: 1822–1829.
[95]
Forleo GB, Gasperetti A, Breitenstein A, Laredo M, Schiavone M, Ziacchi M, et al. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and defibrillation testing: A propensity-matched pilot study. Heart Rhythm. 2021; 18: 2072–2079.
[96]
Hoster C, Rahman A, Goyal A, Peigh G, Trohman R, Knight BP, et al. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation position predicts successful defibrillation in obese and non-obese patients. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology: an International Journal of Arrhythmias and Pacing. 2023. (Online ahead of print)
[97]
Gasperetti A, Schiavone M, Biffi M, Casella M, Compagnucci P, Mitacchione G, et al. Intraprocedural PRAETORIAN score for early assessment of S-ICD implantation: A proof-of-concept study. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2021; 32: 3035–3041.
[98]
Budrejko S, Kempa M, Krupa W, Królak T, Fabiszak T, Raczak G. Real-Life Inter-Rater Variability of the PRAETORIAN Score Values. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19: 9700.
[99]
Okabe T, Savona SJ, Matto F, Ward C, Singh P, Afzal MR, et al. A 10 J shock impedance in sinus rhythm correlates with a 65 J defibrillation impedance during subcutaneous defibrillator implantation using an intermuscular technique. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2021; 32: 3027–3034.
[100]
Di Girolamo E, Furia N, Faustino M, Appignani M, Arcari G, Angelini A, et al. Is shock impedance value alone to be considered a good predictor for shock efficacy in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator? Clinical Case Reports. 2018; 6: 574–577.
[101]
Al-Ghamdi B, Shafquat A, Alruwaili N, Emmanual S, Shoukri M, Mallawi Y. Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators Implantation Without Defibrillation Threshold Testing: A Single Center Experience. Cardiology Research. 2017; 8: 319–326.
[102]
Ricciardi D, Ziacchi M, Gasperetti A, Schiavone M, Picarelli F, Diemberger I, et al. Clinical impact of defibrillation testing in a real-world S-ICD population: Data from the ELISIR registry. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2021; 32: 468–476.
[103]
Quast AFBE, Baalman SWE, Betts TR, Boersma LVA, Bonnemeier H, Boveda S, et al. Rationale and design of the PRAETORIAN-DFT trial: A prospective randomized CompArative trial of SubcutanEous ImplanTable CardiOverter-DefibrillatoR ImplANtation with and without DeFibrillation testing. American Heart Journal. 2019; 214: 167–174.
[104]
Olde Nordkamp LRA, Dabiri Abkenari L, Boersma LVA, Maass AH, de Groot JR, van Oostrom AJHHM, et al. The entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: initial clinical experience in a large Dutch cohort. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2012; 60: 1933–1939.
[105]
Jarman JWE, Todd DM. United Kingdom national experience of entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator technology: important lessons to learn. Europace. 2013; 15: 1158–1165.
[106]
Lambiase PD, Barr C, Theuns DAMJ, Knops R, Neuzil P, Johansen JB, et al. Worldwide experience with a totally subcutaneous implantable defibrillator: early results from the EFFORTLESS S-ICD Registry. European Heart Journal. 2014; 35: 1657–1665.
[107]
Burke MC, Gold MR, Knight BP, Barr CS, Theuns DAMJ, Boersma LVA, et al. Safety and Efficacy of the Totally Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillator: 2-Year Results From a Pooled Analysis of the IDE Study and EFFORTLESS Registry. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2015; 65: 1605–1615.
[108]
Brisben AJ, Burke MC, Knight BP, Hahn SJ, Herrmann KL, Allavatam V, et al. A new algorithm to reduce inappropriate therapy in the S-ICD system. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2015; 26: 417–423.
[109]
Tachibana M, Nishii N, Banba K, Fujita S, Ikeda E, Okawa K, et al. SMART pass will prevent inappropriate operation of S-ICD. Journal of Arrhythmia. 2018; 35: 86–91.
[110]
Healey JS, Krahn AD, Bashir J, Amit G, Philippon F, McIntyre WF, et al. Perioperative Safety and Early Patient and Device Outcomes Among Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantations: A Randomized, Multicenter Trial. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2022; 175: 1658–1665.
[111]
Lee JZ, Pasha AK, Glasgow AE, Habermann EB, Kusumoto FM, McLeod CJ, et al. Postoperative opioid prescription patterns and new opioid refills following cardiac implantable electronic device procedures. Heart Rhythm. 2019; 16: 1841–1848.
[112]
Ishida Y, Payne JE, Field ME, Gold MR. Electromagnetic interference from left ventricular assist devices in patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2020; 31: 1195–1201.
[113]
Saini H, Saini A, Leffler J, Eddy S, Ellenbogen KA. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) shocks in a patient with a left ventricular assist device. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology: PACE. 2018; 41: 309–311.
[114]
Black-Maier E, Lewis RK, Barnett AS, Pokorney SD, Sun AY, Koontz JI, et al. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator troubleshooting in patients with a left ventricular assist device: A case series and systematic review. Heart Rhythm. 2020; 17: 1536–1544.
[115]
Nayak HM, Sauser E, Xie T. Interference of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator by deep brain stimulation. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders. 2020; 81: 75–77.
[116]
Trolese L, Faber T, Gressler A, Steinfurt J, Stuplich J, Jordan E, et al. Device interaction between cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) and subcutaneous defibrillator (S-ICD). Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2021; 32: 3095–3098.
[117]
Bader Y, Weinstock J. Successful implantation of a subcutaneous cardiac defibrillator in a patient with a preexisting deep brain stimulator. HeartRhythm Case Reports. 2015; 1: 241–244.
[118]
Röger S, Borggrefe M, Kuschyk J. Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction And A Narrow QRS Complex: Combination Of A Subcutaneous Defibrillator With Cardiac Contractility Modulation. Journal of Atrial Fibrillation. 2015; 8: 1081.
[119]
Weipert KF, Andrick J, Chasan R, Gemein C, Most A, Hamm CW, et al. Baroreceptor stimulation in a patient with preexisting subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology: PACE. 2018; 41: 90–92.
[120]
Kuschyk J, Stach K, Tülümen E, Rudic B, Liebe V, Schimpf R, et al. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: First single-center experience with other cardiac implantable electronic devices. Heart Rhythm. 2015; 12: 2230–2238.
[121]
Boersma L, Burke MC, Neuzil P, Lambiase P, Friehling T, Theuns DA, et al. Infection and mortality after implantation of a subcutaneous ICD after transvenous ICD extraction. Heart Rhythm. 2016; 13: 157–164.
[122]
Viani S, Migliore F, Tola G, Pisanò ECL, Russo AD, Luzzi G, et al. Use and outcomes of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) after transvenous ICD extraction: An analysis of current clinical practice and a comparison with transvenous ICD reimplantation. Heart Rhythm. 2019; 16: 564–571.
[123]
Chung DU, Tauber J, Kaiser L, Schlichting A, Pecha S, Sinning C, et al. Performance and outcome of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator after transvenous lead extraction. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology: PACE. 2021; 44: 247–257.
[124]
Giacomin E, Falzone PV, Dall’Aglio PB, Pittorru R, De Lazzari M, Vianello R, et al. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator after transvenous lead extraction: safety, efficacy and outcome. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology: an International Journal of Arrhythmias and Pacing. 2022. (Online ahead of print)
[125]
Russo V, Viani S, Migliore F, Nigro G, Biffi M, Tola G, et al. Lead Abandonment and Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (S-ICD) Implantation in a Cohort of Patients With ICD Lead Malfunction. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2021; 8: 692943.
[126]
Porterfield C, DiMarco JP, Mason PK. Effectiveness of implantation of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in a patient with complete heart block and a pacemaker. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2015; 115: 276–278.
[127]
Huang J, Patton KK, Prutkin JM. Concomitant Use of the Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator and a Permanent Pacemaker. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology: PACE. 2016; 39: 1240–1245.
[128]
Ip JE, Wu MS, Kennel PJ, Thomas G, Liu CF, Cheung JW, et al. Eligibility of Pacemaker Patients for Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2017; 28: 544–548.
[129]
Giammaria M, Lucciola MT, Amellone C, Orlando F, Mazzone G, Chiarenza S, et al. Eligibility of cardiac resynchronization therapy patients for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. 2019; 54: 49–54.
[130]
Kawabata M, Goya M, Takahashi Y, Maeda S, Yagishita A, Shirai Y, et al. Candidacy for a Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Patients with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy. International Heart Journal. 2018; 59: 951–958.
[131]
Gauthey A, Calle S, Accinelli S, Depuydt P, Garnir Q, Scavée C, et al. His bundle pacing for newly acquired pacing needs in patients implanted with a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: A feasibility study based on the automated screening score and clinical cases. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2020; 31: 1793–1800.
[132]
Steinberg C, Chakrabarti S, Krahn AD, Bashir J. Nothing inside the heart - Combining epicardial pacing with the S-ICD. HeartRhythm Case Reports. 2015; 1: 419–423.
[133]
Ishii N, Nakajima K, Kakuta T, Noda T, Fujita T, Kusano K. One Indication for an Extravascular Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Defibrillator: Lessons from a Combination Therapy Case with Epicardial Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and a Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator. Internal Medicine (Tokyo, Japan). 2021; 60: 1877–1880.
[134]
Opielowska-Nowak B, Kempa M, Budrejko S, Sławiński G, Raczak G. Eligibility of patients with temporary paced rhythm for a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Kardiologia Polska. 2022; 80: 1231–1237.
[135]
Mitacchione G, Schiavone M, Gasperetti A, Arabia G, Breitenstein A, Cerini M, et al. Outcomes of leadless pacemaker implantation following transvenous lead extraction in high-volume referral centers: Real-world data from a large international registry. Heart Rhythm. 2023; 20: 395–404.
[136]
Mondésert B, Dubuc M, Khairy P, Guerra PG, Gosselin G, Thibault B. Combination of a leadless pacemaker and subcutaneous defibrillator: First in-human report. HeartRhythm Case Reports. 2015; 1: 469–471.
[137]
Ljungström E, Brandt J, Mörtsell D, Borgquist R, Wang L. Combination of a leadless pacemaker and subcutaneous defibrillator with nine effective shock treatments during follow-up of 18 months. Journal of Electrocardiology. 2019; 56: 1–3.
[138]
Tjong FVY, Brouwer TF, Smeding L, Kooiman KM, de Groot JR, Ligon D, et al. Combined leadless pacemaker and subcutaneous implantable defibrillator therapy: feasibility, safety, and performance. Europace. 2016; 18: 1740–1747.
[139]
Montgomery JA, Orton JM, Ellis CR. Feasibility of Defibrillation and Pacing Without Transvenous Leads in a Combined MICRA and S-ICD System Following Lead Extraction. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2017; 28: 233–234.
[140]
Kaczmarek K, Czarniak B, Jakubowski P, Wranicz JK, Ptaszyński P. Leadless pacemaker and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: the first use of a novel treatment option in Poland. Kardiologia Polska. 2018; 76: 1026.
[141]
Tjong FVY, Brouwer TF, Koop B, Soltis B, Shuros A, Schmidt B, et al. Acute and 3-Month Performance of a Communicating Leadless Antitachycardia Pacemaker and Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillator. JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 2017; 3: 1487–1498.
[142]
Breeman KTN, Swackhamer B, Brisben AJ, Quast AFBE, Carter N, Shuros A, et al. Long-term performance of a novel communicating antitachycardia pacing-enabled leadless pacemaker and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator system: A comprehensive preclinical study. Heart Rhythm. 2022; 19: 837–846.
[143]
Nieves J, Laslett DB, Basil A, Whitman IR, Cooper JM, Cronin EM. Simultaneous Leadless Pacemaker and Subcutaneous ICD Implantation With Intraoperative Screening: Workflow in Two Patients. JACC: Case Reports. 2022; 4: 101535.
[144]
Gasperetti A, Schiavone M, Vogler J, Laredo M, Fastenrath F, Palmisano P, et al. The need for a subsequent transvenous system in patients implanted with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Heart Rhythm. 2022; 19: 1958–1964.
[145]
Knops RE, Pepplinkhuizen S, Delnoy PPHM, Boersma LVA, Kuschyk J, El-Chami MF, et al. Device-related complications in subcutaneous versus transvenous ICD: a secondary analysis of the PRAETORIAN trial. European Heart Journal. 2022; 43: 4872–4883.
[146]
Ip JE. Technique for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator extraction. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2019; 30: 789–791.
[147]
Patel K, Tarantino N, Miles J, Zhang XD, Gross J. The first use of a rotating mechanical dilator sheath for S-ICD coil extraction. HeartRhythm Case Reports. 2019; 6: 94–97.
[148]
Behar N, Galand V, Martins RP, Jacon P, Badenco N, Blangy H, et al. Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Lead Extraction: First Multicenter French Experience. JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 2020; 6: 863–870.
[149]
Allison JD, Sabeh MK, Mela T. Novel Use of a Rotating Mechanical Dilator Sheath for S-ICD Lead Extraction. JACC: Case Reports. 2021; 3: 1415–1418.
[150]
Pothineni NVK, Cherian T, Patel N, Smietana J, Frankel DS, Deo R, et al. Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Explantation-A Single Tertiary Center Experience. The Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management. 2022; 13: 4947–4953.

Publisher’s Note: IMR Press stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share
Back to top