Key result
Automated sICD screening in patients with leadless pacemakers was successful in 94.1% during intrinsic rhythm, but only 23.8% and 28.5% during nominal and emergency pacing outputs, respectively.
Why the study?
Indications for leadless pacemakers and sICDs frequently overlap, but sICD implantation requires passing QRS screening during intrinsic and paced rhythms to assess morphology stability.
What is the rate of positive automated sICD screening during intrinsic versus paced rhythms in patients with leadless pacemakers?
Cross-Sectional (n=22)
What is the rate of positive automated sICD screening during intrinsic versus paced rhythms in patients with leadless pacemakers?
The low rate of positive sICD screening during pacing in patients with leadless pacemakers raises clinical concerns about the feasibility of combining these two devices.
May support automated screening feasibility in LPM patients; leaves open whether it reliably predicts sICD eligibility.
BACKGROUND: The number of leadless pacemakers (LPMs) implantations has seen a major growth in recent years. Indications for LPMs often overlap with indications for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (sICDs), as they are mostly recommended in patients in whom transvenous devices are deemed ineligible or contraindicated. Before sICD implantation, the patient should pass screening to verify the stability of QRS morphology in intrinsic and paced rhythms. The aim of this study was to evaluate the percentage of positive sICD screening in patients with a previously implanted LPM and evaluate the concordance between the vectors during the intrinsic and paced rhythm. METHODS: Twenty-two patients who underwent implantation of the ventricular LPM from May to October 2024 were included in the present study. After the implantation, automated sICD screening was performed using the dedicated system, across 2-4 body positions, both during intrinsic and paced rhythms, in nominal, and emergency output. RESULTS: All patients had the devices implanted in the interventricular septal location. Screening for QRS indicated that 94.1% of patients fulfilled the criterion for implantation of sICD in at least one vector during intrinsic rhythm, while only 23.8% and 28.5% passed screening during nominal and emergency pacing outputs, respectively. Positive screening concordance in at least one vector was observed in 23.5% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite almost all patients having undergone successful screening during intrinsic rhythm, the low rates of positive QRS assessment were observed during pacing, what might raise potential concerns for an optimal coexistence of LPM and sICD in daily clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dyrbuś et al. (2025) conducted a cross-sectional in Patients with a previously implanted ventricular leadless pacemaker (n=22). Automated sICD screening was evaluated on Positive sICD screening in at least one vector. Automated sICD screening in patients with leadless pacemakers was successful in 94.1% during intrinsic rhythm, but only 23.8% and 28.5% during nominal and emergency pacing outputs, respectively.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: