BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has demonstrated safety and efficacy for the treatment of malignant ventricular arrhythmias. However, a limitation of the S-ICD lies in the inability to either pace-terminate ventricular tachycardia or provide prolonged bradycardia pacing support. OBJECTIVE: The rationale and design of a prospective, single-arm, multinational trial of an intercommunicative leadless pacing system integrated with the S-ICD will be presented. METHODS: A technical description of the modular cardiac rhythm management (mCRM) system (EMPOWER leadless pacemaker and EMBLEM S-ICD) and the implantation procedure is provided. MODULAR ATP (Effectiveness of the EMPOWERTM Modular Pacing System and EMBLEMTM Subcutaneous ICD to Communicate Antitachycardia Pacing) is a multicenter, international trial enrolling up to 300 patients at risk of sudden cardiac death at up to 60 centers trial design. The safety endpoint of freedom from major complications related to the mCRM system or implantation procedure at 6 months and 2 years are significantly higher than 86% and 81%, respectively, and all-cause survival is significantly >85% at 2 years. RESULTS: Efficacy endpoints are that at 6 months mCRM communication success is significantly higher than 88% and the percentage of subjects with low and stable thresholds is significantly higher than 80%. Substudies to evaluate rate-responsive features and performance of the pacing module are also described. CONCLUSION: The MODULAR ATP global clinical trial will prospectively test the safety and efficacy of the first intercommunicating leadless pacing system with the S-ICD. This trial will allow for robust validation of device-device communication, pacing performance, rate responsiveness, and system safety.

• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH

BACKGROUND: The Shockless IMPLant Evaluation (SIMPLE) trial showed that defibrillation testing (DT) at the time of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implant did not improve shock efficacy or reduce mortality. There are no data regarding the risk of complications, including stroke, among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who undergo DT. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospectively planned substudy of SIMPLE was to evaluate the effect of DT vs no DT on clinical outcomes among patients with AF. METHODS: We compared efficacy (failed appropriate shock/arrhythmic death) and safety between patients who had AF on their immediate preprocedural ECG to the rest of the study patients. Then among patients with AF we compared these outcomes between patients randomized to DT vs no DT. RESULTS: Of the 2500 patients enrolled in SIMPLE, 251 (10%) were in AF immediately before ICD implant. AF patients had an increased risk of failed appropriate shock/arrhythmic death (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-2.39; P = .009) and higher all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.58; 95% CI 1.2-2.08; P = .001). Among AF patients, perioperative complications and stroke did not significantly differ between DT vs no-DT groups (9.2% vs 5.4%; P = .2; and 1.7% vs 1.5%; P >.999, respectively). Failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death occurred in 35 of 251 AF patients (14%), and the no-DT group proved not inferior to the DT group (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.30-1.15; Pnoninferiority = .006). CONCLUSION: ICD recipients with AF are at increased risk for adverse outcomes; however, DT does not improve arrhythmic survival or shock efficacy. There is no evidence that DT increased the occurrence of perioperative stroke.

• MeSH
• defibrilátory implantabilní * MeSH
• elektrokardiografie * MeSH
• fibrilace síní mortalita   patofyziologie   terapie   MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• míra přežití trendy   MeSH
• následné studie MeSH
• převodní systém srdeční patofyziologie   MeSH
• prospektivní studie MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• výsledek terapie MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mužské pohlaví MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• ženské pohlaví MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• multicentrická studie MeSH
• randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH
• Geografické názvy
• Evropa MeSH

INTRODUCTION: Dual-coil leads (DC-leads) were the standard of choice since the first nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD). We used contemporary data to determine if DC-leads offer any advantage over single-coil leads (SC-leads), in terms of defibrillation efficacy, safety, clinical outcome, and complication rates. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation study, 2500 patients received a first implanted ICD and were randomized to implantation with or without defibrillation testing. Two thousand and four hundred seventy-five patients received SC-coil or DC-coil leads (SC-leads in 1025/2475 patients; 41.4%). In patients who underwent defibrillation testing (n = 1204), patients with both lead types were equally likely to achieve an adequate defibrillation safety margin (88.8% vs 91.2%; P = 0.16). There was no overall effect of lead type on the primary study endpoint of "failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death" (adjusted HR 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86-1.62; P = 0.300), and on all-cause mortality (SC-leads: 5.34%/year; DC-leads: 5.48%/year; adjusted HR 1.16; 95% CI, 0.94-1.43; P = 0.168). However, among patients without prior heart failure (HF), and SC-leads had a significantly higher risk of failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death (adjusted HR 7.02; 95% CI, 2.41-20.5). There were no differences in complication rates. CONCLUSION: In this nonrandomized evaluation, there was no overall difference in defibrillation efficacy, safety, outcome, and complication rates between SC-leads and DC-leads. However, DC-leads were associated with a reduction in the composite of failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death in the subgroup of non-HF patients. Considering riskier future lead extraction with DC-leads, SC-leads appears to be preferable in the majority of patients.

• MeSH
• časové faktory MeSH
• defibrilátory implantabilní * MeSH
• elektrická defibrilace škodlivé účinky   přístrojové vybavení   mortalita   MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• náhlá srdeční smrt prevence a kontrola   MeSH
• příčina smrti MeSH
• primární prevence přístrojové vybavení   MeSH
• protézy - design MeSH
• randomizované kontrolované studie jako téma MeSH
• rizikové faktory MeSH
• sekundární prevence přístrojové vybavení   MeSH
• selhání protézy MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• srdeční arytmie diagnóza   mortalita   patofyziologie   terapie   MeSH
• výsledek terapie MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mužské pohlaví MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• ženské pohlaví MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• pozorovací studie MeSH
• srovnávací studie MeSH

Aims: No standard practice exists with respect to anaesthesiologist-directed sedation (ADS) vs. sedation by proceduralist (PDS) for defibrillation threshold (DT) testing. We aimed to evaluate adverse events and safety outcomes with ADS vs. PDS for DT testing. Methods and results: A post hoc analysis of the Shockless Implant Evaluation (SIMPLE) study was performed among the 1242 patients who had DT testing (624 ADS and 618 PDS). We evaluated both intraoperative and in-hospital adverse composite events and two safety composite outcomes at 30-days of the main trial. Propensity score adjusted models were used to compute odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to evaluate the association between adverse and safety outcomes with method of sedation and independent predictors for use of ADS. Compared to PDS, patients who received ADS were younger (62 ± 12 years vs. 64 ± 12 years, P = 0.01), had lower ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction 0.31 ± 13 vs. 0.33 ± 13, P = 0.03), were more likely to receive inhalational anaesthesia, propofol, or narcotics (P < 0.001, respectively) and receive an arterial line (43% vs. 8%, P = <0.0001). Independent predictors for ADS sedation were presence of coronary artery disease (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.0-2.72; P = 0.03) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.19-5.85; P = 0.02). Anaesthesiologist directed sedation had higher intraoperative adverse events (2.2% vs. 0.5%; OR 4.47, 95% CI 1.25-16.0; P = 0.02) and higher primary safety outcomes at 30 days (8.2% vs. 4.9%; OR 1.72 95% CI 1.06-2.80; P = 0.03) and no difference in other outcomes compared to PDS. Conclusion: Proceduralist-directed sedation is safe, however, this could be result of selection bias. Further research is needed.

• MeSH
• analgosedace * škodlivé účinky   metody   MeSH
• defibrilátory implantabilní * MeSH
• fibrilace komor terapie   MeSH
• hodnocení rizik MeSH
• hypnotika a sedativa * aplikace a dávkování   škodlivé účinky   MeSH
• implantace protézy * škodlivé účinky   přístrojové vybavení   metody   MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• náhlá srdeční smrt etiologie   prevence a kontrola   MeSH
• pooperační komplikace * diagnóza   epidemiologie   etiologie   MeSH
• rizikové faktory MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• výsledky a postupy - zhodnocení (zdravotní péče) MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mužské pohlaví MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• ženské pohlaví MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH

INTRODUCTION: We aim to compare the acute and long-term success of defibrillation between non-apical and apical ICD lead position. METHODS AND RESULTS: The position of the ventricular lead was recorded by the implanting physician for 2,475 of 2,500 subjects in the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation (SIMPLE) trial, and subjects were grouped accordingly as non-apical or apical. The success of intra-operative defibrillation testing and of subsequent clinical shocks were compared. Propensity scoring was used to adjust for the impact of differences in baseline variables between these groups. There were 541 leads that were implanted at a non-apical position (21.9%). Patients implanted with a non-apical lead had a higher rate of secondary prevention indication. Non-apical location resulted in a lower mean R-wave amplitude (14.0 vs. 15.2, P < 0.001), lower mean pacing impedance (662 ohm vs. 728 ohm, P < 0.001), and higher mean pacing threshold (0.70 V vs. 0.66 V, P = 0.01). Single-coil leads and cardiac resynchronization devices were used more often in non-apical implants. The success of intra-operative defibrillation was similar between propensity score matched groups (89%). Over a mean follow-up of 3 years, there were no significant differences in the yearly rates of appropriate shock (5.5% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.98), failed appropriate first shock (0.9% vs. 1.0%, P = 0.66), or the composite of failed shock or arrhythmic death (2.8% vs. 2.3% P = 0.35) according to lead location. CONCLUSION: We did not detect any reduction in the ICD efficacy at the time of implant or during follow-up in patients receiving a non-apical RV lead.

• MeSH
• časové faktory MeSH
• defibrilátory implantabilní * MeSH
• elektrická defibrilace škodlivé účinky   přístrojové vybavení   metody   mortalita   MeSH
• elektrofyziologické techniky kardiologické MeSH
• Kaplanův-Meierův odhad MeSH
• kardiostimulace umělá MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• logistické modely MeSH
• náhlá srdeční smrt etiologie   MeSH
• proporcionální rizikové modely MeSH
• prospektivní studie MeSH
• protézy - design MeSH
• rizikové faktory MeSH
• selhání protézy MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• srdeční arytmie komplikace   diagnóza   mortalita   terapie   MeSH
• tendenční skóre MeSH
• výsledek terapie MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mužské pohlaví MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• ženské pohlaví MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• multicentrická studie MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH
• randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH
• srovnávací studie MeSH

BACKGROUND: Defibrillation testing by induction and termination of ventricular fibrillation is widely done at the time of implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ICD implantation without defibrillation testing versus the standard of ICD implantation with defibrillation testing. METHODS: In this single-blind, randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial (Shockless IMPLant Evaluation [SIMPLE]), we recruited patients aged older than 18 years receiving their first ICD for standard indications at 85 hospitals in 18 countries worldwide. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, awaiting transplantation, particpation in another randomised trial, unavailability for follow-up, or if it was expected that the ICD would have to be implanted on the right-hand side of the chest. Patients undergoing initial implantation of a Boston Scientific ICD were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated sequence to have either defibrillation testing (testing group) or not (no-testing group). We used random block sizes to conceal treatment allocation from the patients, and randomisation was stratified by clinical centre. Our primary efficacy analysis tested the intention-to-treat population for non-inferiority of no-testing versus testing by use of a composite outcome of arrhythmic death or failed appropriate shock (ie, a shock that did not terminate a spontaneous episode of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation). The non-inferiority margin was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·5 calculated from a proportional hazards model with no-testing versus testing as the only covariate; if the upper bound of the 95% CI was less than 1·5, we concluded that ICD insertion without testing was non-inferior to ICD with testing. We examined safety with two, 30 day, adverse event outcome clusters. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00800384. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2009, and April 4, 2011, of 2500 eligible patients, 1253 were randomly assigned to defibrillation testing and 1247 to no-testing, and followed up for a mean of 3·1 years (SD 1·0). The primary outcome of arrhythmic death or failed appropriate shock occurred in fewer patients (90 [7% per year]) in the no-testing group than patients who did receive it (104 [8% per year]; HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·65-1·14; pnon-inferiority <0·0001). The first safety composite outcome occurred in 69 (5·6%) of 1236 patients with no-testing and in 81 (6·5%) of 1242 patients with defibrillation testing, p=0·33. The second, pre-specified safety composite outcome, which included only events most likely to be directly caused by testing, occurred in 3·2% of patients with no-testing and in 4·5% with defibrillation testing, p=0·08. Heart failure needing intravenous treatment with inotropes or diuretics was the most common adverse event (in 20 [2%] of 1236 patients in the no-testing group vs 28 [2%] of 1242 patients in the testing group, p=0·25). INTERPRETATION: Routine defibrillation testing at the time of ICD implantation is generally well tolerated, but does not improve shock efficacy or reduce arrhythmic death. FUNDING: Boston Scientific and the Heart and Stroke Foundation (Ontario Provincial office).

• MeSH
• bezpečnost pacientů MeSH
• defibrilátory implantabilní * MeSH
• elektrická defibrilace metody   mortalita   MeSH
• fibrilace komor etiologie   MeSH
• hodnocení rizik MeSH
• implantace protézy metody   mortalita   MeSH
• jednoduchá slepá metoda MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• pooperační komplikace etiologie   mortalita   MeSH
• prognóza MeSH
• srdeční arytmie mortalita   terapie   MeSH
• srdeční selhání etiologie   MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mužské pohlaví MeSH
• ženské pohlaví MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• multicentrická studie MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH
• randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH
• srovnávací studie MeSH