Performance and Safety of the Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Through Long-Term Follow-Up: Final Results From the Pivotal Study
Authors: Friedman Paul , Murgatroyd Francis , Boersma Lucas V.A. , Manlucu Jaimie , Knight Bradley P. , Clémenty Nicolas , Leclercq Christophe , Amin Anish , Merkely Béla , Birgersdotter-Green Ulrika Maria , Chan Joseph Yat Sun , Biffi Mauro , Knops Reinoud Elwin , Engel Gregory , Muñoz Carvajal Ignacio , Epstein Laurence M. , Sagi Venkata , Johansen Jens Brock , Sterliński Maciej , Steinwender Clemens , Hounshell Troy , Abben Richard , Thompson Amy E. , Zhang Yan , Wiggenhorn Christopher , Willey Sarah , Crozier Ian ,   on behalf of the Extravascular ICD Pivotal Study Investigators
Published: September 2024

BACKGROUND:

Substernal lead placement of the extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator (EV ICD) permits both defibrillation at thresholds similar to those seen with transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators and effective anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) while avoiding the vasculature and associated complications. The global Pivotal study has shown the EV ICD system to be safe and effective through 6 months, but long-term experience has yet to be published. Our aim was to report the performance and safety of the EV ICD system throughout the study.

METHODS:

The EV ICD Pivotal study was a prospective, global, single-arm, premarket clinical study. Individuals with a Class I or IIa indication for a single-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator per guidelines were enrolled. Freedom from major system- or procedure-related complications and appropriate and inappropriate therapy rates were assessed through 3 years with the Kaplan-Meier method. ATP success was calculated from simple proportions.

RESULTS:

An implantation was attempted in 316 patients (25.3% female; 53.8±13.1 years of age; 81.6% primary prevention; left ventricular ejection fraction, 38.9±15.4%). Of 299 patients with a successful implantation, 24 experienced 82 spontaneous arrhythmic episodes that were appropriately treated with ATP only (38, 46.3%), shock only (34, 41.5%), or both (10, 12.2%) for a Kaplan-Meier–estimated rate of first any appropriate therapy of 9.2% at 3 years. ATP was successful in 77.1% (37/48) of episodes, and ATP use significantly increased from discharge to last follow-up visit (
P
<0.0001). Shock therapy was successful in 100% (27/27) of discrete, spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias. The inappropriate shock rates at 1 and 3 years were 9.8% and 17.5%, respectively, with P-wave oversensing the predominant cause. No major intraprocedural complications were reported, and the estimated freedom from system- or procedure-related major complications was 91.9% at 1 year and 89.0% at 3 years. The most common major complications were lead dislodgement (10 events; n=9 patients, 2.8%), postoperative wound or device pocket infection (n=8, 2.5%), and device inappropriate shock delivery (n=4, 1.3%). Twenty-four system revisions were performed as a result of major complications related to the EV ICD system or procedure.

CONCLUSIONS:

From implantation to study completion, the EV ICD Pivotal study demonstrated that a single integrated system with an extravascular lead placed in the substernal space maintains high ATP success, effective defibrillation, and a consistent safety profile.

REGISTRATION:

URL:
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov
; Unique identifier: NCT04060680.