The potential impact of acute coronary syndromes on automatic sensing system in Subcutaneous-ICDs

• Main Authors: M.L. Narducci, R. Scacciavillani, G. Pinnacchio, G. Bencardino, F. Perna, G. Comerci, M. Campisi, I. Ceccarelli, C. Pavone, F. Spera, A. Bisignani, F. Crea, G. Pelargonio
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2021-08-01
• Series: International Journal of Cardiology: Heart & Vasculature
• Subjects: S-ICD; Automated sensing system; Acute coronary syndrome; STEMI; CCS
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352906721001299

Background: The Subcutaneous-ICD (S-ICD) is emerging as a suitable option for most ICD candidates, however some open issues regarding the sensing algorithm still remain. Objectives: We aimed to examine the performance of the S-ICD sensing algorithm in patients hospitalized for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) or chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), before and after revascularization. Methods: We performed a S-ICD automated screening on 75 patients, 21 hospitalized for STEMI, 23 for NSTE-ACS and 31 for CCS, before and after percutaneous revascularization, regardless their eligibility to ICD implantation. Results: Patients did not differ in clinical, electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters. Rates of screening pass were significantly lower in STEMI patients compared to NSTE-ACS and CCS (5% vs 56.7% vs 81% respectively, p < .0001). The viability of the primary vector was lower in STEMI patients compared to NSTE-ACS and CCS (33% vs 56% vs 71%, p .027 respectively). After revascularization, there were no more significant differences between groups. Pairing subjects at baseline and after revascularization, STEMI subjects percentages of screening success were respectively 5% and 81% (p < .001) and the rates of primary vector viability were 33% and 81% (p .002). STEMI was the only independent predictor of screening failure at multivariate logistic regression analysis (odds ratio 10.68 confidence interval 2.77–41.38, p = .001) Conclusion: The performance of the S-ICD and possible malfunction detections in the context of an acute ischemic event deserve further evaluation. Adequate patient selection and the development of dynamic device programming are warranted.