The EV ICD system achieved 100% defibrillation success and 85.7% freedom from major system- or procedure-related complications at 12 months in Japanese patients.
Cohort (n=14)
Yes
Does the extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (EV ICD) safely and effectively terminate ventricular arrhythmias in Japanese patients with a Class I or IIa indication for a single-chamber ICD?
The EV ICD system demonstrated 100% acute defibrillation success and acceptable safety in a small cohort of Japanese patients, supporting its feasibility as an alternative to transvenous ICDs.
Background: The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (EV ICD) has proven efficacy and a low complication rate in global populations, but data from Japanese patients is limited. We report the safety and efficacy of the EV ICD system in a Japanese cohort through 12 months of follow-up. Methods and Results: Patients from Japan with a Class I or IIa indication for a single-chamber ICD were enrolled and implanted with the EV ICD system. Defibrillation success was determined following implant. System programming changes, device electrical performance, freedom from major system- or procedure-related complications through 12 months post-implant, and follow-up status at all visits were assessed. From February to September 2023, 14 patients (12 males, 2 females) were enrolled and successfully implanted across 2 sites (age: 53.6±14.7 years; left ventricular ejection fraction: 52.6±15.6%; secondary prevention: 42.9%). Defibrillation testing was successful in all patients (14/14, 100%). At 2 weeks and 12 months, freedom from major system- and/or procedure-related complications was 92.9% and 85.7%, respectively. One patient received 7 appropriate shocks that were successful in terminating the arrhythmia. There were no inappropriate shocks delivered, and a single inappropriate antitachycardia pacing therapy was delivered through follow-up. Conclusions: The EV ICD system was safely implanted and effective at terminating both induced and spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias in a small cohort of Japanese patients.
“The Aurora EV-ICD system maintains the same size as conventional transvenous ICDs, reduces the risk of complications in the blood vessels as it is placed outside of the blood vessels. It also offers a major advantage in its ability to deliver ATP therapy, which makes it possible to treat life-threatening arrhythmia effectively while avoiding shock therapy. From patients who participated in the clinical trial, the size of the device was well received, and it is expected to bring great benefits to patients who need ICD devices in the future by reducing their burden and preventing a decline in their quality of life.”
Wada et al. (Mon,) conducted a cohort in Class I or IIa indication for a single-chamber ICD (n=14). Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (EV ICD) was evaluated on Defibrillation success following implant and freedom from major system- or procedure-related complications through 12 months post-implant. The EV ICD system achieved 100% defibrillation success and 85.7% freedom from major system- or procedure-related complications at 12 months in Japanese patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: