Evaluation of a novel automatic screening tool for determining eligibility for a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
International Journal of Cardiology , Volume 272 p. 97- 101
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] 1.2–9.3, P = 0.02; AST: OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.2–7.6, 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.
|, , , , ,|
|International Journal of Cardiology|
|Organisation||Department of Cardiology|
Sakhi, R, Yap, S.C, Michels, M, Schinkel, A.F.L, Kauling, R.M, Roos-Hesselink, J.W, & Theuns, D.A.M.J. (2018). Evaluation of a novel automatic screening tool for determining eligibility for a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. International Journal of Cardiology, 272, 97–101. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.07.037