Appropriate and inappropriate shocks in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: An international multicenter study

Abstract

Background: Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) are attractive for preventing sudden cardiac death in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) as they mitigate risks of transvenous leads in young patients. However, S-ICDs may be associated with increased inappropriate shock (IAS) in HCM patients. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence and predictors of appropriate shock and IAS in a contemporary HCM S-ICD cohort. Methods: We collected electrocardiographic and clinical data from HCM patients who underwent S-ICD implantation at 4 centers. Etiologies of all S-ICD shocks were adjudicated. We used Firth penalized logistic regression to derive adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for predictors of IAS. Results: Eighty-eight HCM patients received S-ICDs (81 for primary and 7 for secondary prevention) with a mean follow-up of 2.7 years. Five patients (5.7%) had 9 IAS episodes (3.8 IAS per 100 patient-years) most often because of sinus tachycardia and/or T-wave oversensing. Independent predictors of IAS were higher 12-lead electrocardiographic R-wave amplitude (aOR 2.55 per 1 mV; 95% confidence interval 1.15–6.38) and abnormal T-wave inversions (aOR 0.16; 95% confidence interval 0.02–0.97). There were 2 appropriate shocks in 7 secondary prevention patients and none in 81 primary prevention patients, despite 96% meeting Enhanced American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association criteria and the mean European HCM Risk-SCD score predicting 5.7% 5-year risk. No patients had sudden death or untreated sustained ventricular arrhythmias. Conclusion: In this multicenter HCM S-ICD study, IAS were rare and appropriate shocks confined to secondary prevention patients. The R-wave amplitude increased IAS risk, whereas T-wave inversions were protective. HCM primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator guidelines overestimated the risk of appropriate shocks in our cohort.