Key result
Quantitative S-ICD vector screening linked to ~65% fewer inappropriate shocks or under-sensed arrhythmias vs traditional screening.
Why the study?
High rates of inappropriate shocks persist in certain populations despite contemporary S-ICD techniques and programming, motivating evaluation of a novel quantitative vector screening protocol.
Does a quantitative vector screening protocol reduce inappropriate shocks or under-sensed ventricular arrhythmias in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation?
Cohort (n=223)
No
Does a quantitative vector screening protocol reduce inappropriate shocks or under-sensed ventricular arrhythmias in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation?
Implementing a stricter quantitative vector screening protocol for S-ICD candidates significantly reduces sensing-related complications such as inappropriate shocks.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support stricter S-ICD screening; hypothesis-generating for randomized confirmation.
Background: The subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (S-ICD) offers protection from sudden cardiac death without transvenous leads. Although contemporary techniques and programming have reduced inappropriate shocks, high rates persist in certain populations. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a novel quantitative vector screening (QVS) protocol on the incidence of sensing-related complications and inappropriate shocks in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation. Methods: We analyzed 223 consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD implantation at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania from December 2018 to July 2025. Traditional vector screening was used before 2023. In 2023, we implemented QVS, which incorporated quantitative sensing scores for each candidate and raised the threshold for S-ICD implantation. The primary end point was time to first inappropriate shock or under-sensed ventricular arrhythmia. Secondary outcomes included SMART Pass deactivation and need for device revision. Outcomes were reported as survival analyses. Results: During preimplant screening, the QVS protocol reduced patient eligibility from 96% to 83%. The median follow-up after implant was 42 months (interquartile range, 48) in the traditional vector screening arm and 18 months (interquartile range, 15) in the QVS arm. The primary end point of time to first inappropriate shock or under-sensed ventricular arrhythmia was longer in the QVS arm (log-rank, P =0.02). There were 23 primary end point events among 145 patients in the traditional vector screening arm (5.2 per 100 patient-years [95% CI, 3.1–7.4]) and 2 primary end point events among 78 patients in the QVS arm (1.8 per 100 patient-years [95% CI, 0.01–4.38]). Conclusions: Implementation of a novel S-ICD screening protocol with stricter eligibility thresholds reduced sensing-related complications, particularly inappropriate shocks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boyle et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Patients undergoing S-ICD implantation (n=223). Quantitative vector screening (QVS) protocol vs. Traditional vector screening was evaluated on Time to first inappropriate shock or under-sensed ventricular arrhythmia (p=0.02). Quantitative vector screening reduced the rate of first inappropriate shock or under-sensed ventricular arrhythmia compared to traditional screening.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: