Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comment
. 2023 Dec 6;25(12):euad352.
doi: 10.1093/europace/euad352.

Comparison of automated subcutaneous defibrillator screening between different pacing sites in cardiac pacing device carriers

Manuel Molina-Lerma  1   2 , Eva Cabrera-Borrego  1   2 , Ricardo Rivera-Lopez  1   2 , Pablo Sánchez-Millán  1   2 , Jesús Peña Mellado  1   2 , Antonio Arriaga Jiménez  1   2 , Miguel Álvarez  1   2
Affiliations
Comment

Comparison of automated subcutaneous defibrillator screening between different pacing sites in cardiac pacing device carriers

Manuel Molina-Lerma et al. Europace. .

Abstract

Aims: The compatibility of cardiac pacing with the presence of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has been investigated, but S-ICD screening test results have not been compared among different pacing sites. The objective was to compare S-ICD screening results among different cardiac pacing sites and to assess the electrocardiographic predictors of success.

Methods and results: This prospective single-centre study conducted automated S-ICD screening in 102 carriers of cardiac pacing devices in conduction system (CSP), biventricular (BVP), right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT), or right ventricular apex (RVA) pacing sites. The study included 102 patients: 40 with CSP (20 left bundle pacing and 20 His bundle pacing), 21 with BVP, and 20 and 21 with RVOT and RVA pacing, respectively. The percentage of positive screenings was significantly higher for CSP (97.5%) than for the other patient groups (BVP 71.4%, RVOT 70%, and RVA 19%). In multivariate analysis, positive screening was associated with a narrower QRS (OR 0.95 [0.92-0.98] P = 0.001) and higher R/T ratio in precordial leads (1.76 [1.18-2.61]).

Conclusion: A higher S-ICD eligibility rate of cardiac pacing device carriers was obtained in CSP than in conventional pacing (RVA or RVOT) or BVP. The presence of narrower paced QRS width and paced corrected QT interval and of higher R/T ratio in precordial and limb leads are electrocardiographic predictors of a positive response to screening.

Keywords: Conduction system pacing; His bundle pacing; Left bundle pacing; Screening; Subcutaneous defibrillator.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: None declared.

Figures

Graphical Abstract
Graphical Abstract
(A) Electrocardiographic predictors related to positive screening. (B) Multivariate logistic regression analysis with ‘positive screening’ as dependent variable. (C) Multivariate logistic regression analysis with ‘positive screening’ as dependent variable including ‘pacing site’ variable. **RV apex as reference value. OR, odds ratio; CSP, conduction system pacing; BVP, biventricular pacing; RVOT, right ventricular outflow tract; pQTc, paced corrected QT interval; R/Tp, T and R wave ratio in precordial leads; R/TL, T and R wave ratio in limb leads.
Figure 1
Figure 1
(A) Electrocardiographic predictors related to positive screening. (B) Multivariate logistic regression analysis with ‘positive screening’ as dependent variable. (C) Multivariate logistic regression analysis with ‘positive screening’ as dependent variable including ‘pacing site’ variable. **RV apex as reference value. OR, odds ratio; CSP, conduction system pacing; BVP, biventricular pacing; RVOT, right ventricular outflow tract; pQTc, paced corrected QT interval; R/Tp, T and R wave ratio in precordial leads; R/TL, T and R wave ratio in limb leads.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment on

  • The need for a subsequent transvenous system in patients implanted with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.
    Gasperetti A, Schiavone M, Vogler J, Laredo M, Fastenrath F, Palmisano P, Ziacchi M, Angeletti A, Mitacchione G, Kaiser L, Compagnucci P, Breitenstein A, Arosio R, Vitali F, De Bonis S, Picarelli F, Casella M, Santini L, Pignalberi C, Lavalle C, Pisanò E, Ricciardi D, Calò L, Curnis A, Bertini M, Gulletta S, Dello Russo A, Badenco N, Tondo C, Kuschyk J, Tilz R, Forleo GB, Biffi M. Gasperetti A, et al. Heart Rhythm. 2022 Dec;19(12):1958-1964. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2022.06.030. Epub 2022 Jun 30. Heart Rhythm. 2022. PMID: 35781042

References

    1. Lambiase PD, Theuns DA, Murgatroyd F, Barr C, Eckardt L, Neuzil P et al. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: long-term results of the EFFORTLESS study. Eur Heart J 2022;43:2037–50. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Monkhouse C, Wharmby A, Carter Z, Hunter R, Dhinoja M, Chow A et al. Exploiting SMART pass filter deactivation detection to minimize inappropriate subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapies: a real-world single-centre experience and management guide. Europace 2023;25:euad040. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Olde Nordkamp LR, Brouwer TF, Barr C, Theuns DA, Boersma LV, Johansen JB et al. Inappropriate shocks in the subcutaneous ICD: incidence, predictors and management. Int J Cardiol 2015;195:126–33. - PubMed
    1. ElRefai M, Abouelasaad M, Menexi C, Morgan J, Roberts PR. Impact of right ventricular pacing site on the subcutaneous ICD sensing—a step towards personalised device therapy? J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2022;22:1218–19. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hakamata T, Otsuki S, Izumi D, Sakaguchi Y, Suzuki N, Ikami Y et al. Clinical impact of ECG changes on oversensing of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Heart Rhythm 2022;19:1704–11. - PubMed