4.6 Article

Evaluation of a novel automatic screening tool for determining eligibility for a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 272, Issue -, Pages 97-101

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.07.037

Keywords

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-delithillator; Screening; ECG; Cardiomyopathy; Congenital heart disease; Inherited primary arrhythmia syndrome

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The manufacturer has developed a new ECG screening tool to determine eligibility for the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), the automatic screening tool (AST), which may render manual ECG-screening unnecessary. The aim of the study was to determine the eligibility for the S-ICD using two methods (manual ECG-screening versus AST) in different patient categories including patients with cardiomyopathy, congenital heart disease and inherited primary arrhythmia syndrome. Methods: We prospectively evaluated the ECG suitability for an S-ICD in consecutive patients at our outpatient clinic between February and June 2017. The primary endpoint of the study was ECG eligibility defined as at least 1 successful vector in both supine and sitting postures. Results: A total of 254 patients (167 men; mean age 45 +/- 16 years) were screened using both methods. Overall, there was a high ECG eligibility using either method (93% versus 92%, P = 0.45). Overall agreement between both methods was 94%. Patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) more often had a failed screening test using either test in comparison to the patients without HCM (manual: odds ratio [OR] 3.3, 95% confidence interval ([CI] 12-93, P = 0.02; AST: OR 3.0, 95% CI 12-7.6, P = 0.02). Conclusion: AST showed a high agreement with manual ECG-screening for S-ICD. Overall there was a high ECG eligibility for S-ICD, although patients with HCM had a lower passing rate irrespective of the screening method. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available