BACKGROUND: Substernal lead placement of the extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator (EV ICD) permits both defibrillation at thresholds similar to those seen with transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators and effective anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) while avoiding the vasculature and associated complications. The global Pivotal study has shown the EV ICD system to be safe and effective through 6 months, but long-term experience has yet to be published. Our aim was to report the performance and safety of the EV ICD system throughout the study. METHODS: The EV ICD Pivotal study was a prospective, global, single-arm, premarket clinical study. Individuals with a Class I or IIa indication for a single-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator per guidelines were enrolled. Freedom from major system- or procedure-related complications and appropriate and inappropriate therapy rates were assessed through 3 years with the Kaplan-Meier method. ATP success was calculated from simple proportions. RESULTS: An implantation was attempted in 316 patients (25.3% female; 53.8±13.1 years of age; 81.6% primary prevention; left ventricular ejection fraction, 38.9±15.4%). Of 299 patients with a successful implantation, 24 experienced 82 spontaneous arrhythmic episodes that were appropriately treated with ATP only (38, 46.3%), shock only (34, 41.5%), or both (10, 12.2%) for a Kaplan-Meier–estimated rate of first any appropriate therapy of 9.2% at 3 years. ATP was successful in 77.1% (37/48) of episodes, and ATP use significantly increased from discharge to last follow-up visit ( P <0.0001). Shock therapy was successful in 100% (27/27) of discrete, spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias. The inappropriate shock rates at 1 and 3 years were 9.8% and 17.5%, respectively, with P-wave oversensing the predominant cause. No major intraprocedural complications were reported, and the estimated freedom from system- or procedure-related major complications was 91.9% at 1 year and 89.0% at 3 years. The most common major complications were lead dislodgement (10 events; n=9 patients, 2.8%), postoperative wound or device pocket infection (n=8, 2.5%), and device inappropriate shock delivery (n=4, 1.3%). Twenty-four system revisions were performed as a result of major complications related to the EV ICD system or procedure. CONCLUSIONS: From implantation to study completion, the EV ICD Pivotal study demonstrated that a single integrated system with an extravascular lead placed in the substernal space maintains high ATP success, effective defibrillation, and a consistent safety profile. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04060680.

Cardiac pacing represents a key element in the field of electrophysiology and the treatment of conduction diseases. Since the first issue published in 1999, EP Europace has significantly contributed to the development and dissemination of the research in this area. In the last 25 years, there has been a continuous improvement of technologies and a great expansion of clinical indications making the field of cardiac pacing a fertile ground for research still today. Pacemaker technology has rapidly evolved, from the first external devices with limited longevity, passing through conventional transvenous pacemakers to leadless devices. Constant innovations in pacemaker size, longevity, pacing mode, algorithms, and remote monitoring highlight that the fascinating and exciting journey of cardiac pacing is not over yet. The aim of the present review is to provide the current ‘state of the art’ on cardiac pacing highlighting the most important contributions from the Journal in the field.

Background: There is growing evidence of cardiac injury in COVID‐19. Our purpose was to assess the prognostic value of serial electrocardiograms in COVID‐19 patients.Methods: We evaluated 269 consecutive patients admitted to our center with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. ECGs available at admission and after 1 week from hospitalization were assessed. We evaluated the correlation between ECGs findings and major adverse events (MAE) as the composite of intra‐hospital all‐cause mortality or need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Abnormal ECGs were defined if primary ST‐T segment alterations, left ventricular hypertrophy, tachy or bradyarrhythmias and any new AV, bundle blocks or significant morphology alterations (e.g., new Q pathological waves) were present.Results: Abnormal ECG at admission (106/216) and elevated baseline troponin values were more common in patients who developed MAE (p = .04 and p = .02, respectively). Concerning ECGs recorded after 7 days (159), abnormal findings were reported in 53.5% of patients and they were more frequent in those with MAE (p = .001). Among abnormal ECGs, ischemic alterations and left ventricular hypertrophy were significantly associated with a higher MAE rate. The multivariable analysis showed that the presence of abnormal ECG at 7 days of hospitalization was an independent predictor of MAE (HR 3.2; 95% CI 1.2–8.7; p = .02). Furthermore, patients with abnormal ECG at 7 days more often required transfer to the intensive care unit (p = .01) or renal replacement therapy (p = .04).Conclusions: Patients with COVID‐19 should receive ECG at admission but also during their hospital stay. Indeed, electrocardiographic alterations during hospitalization are associated with MAE and infection severity.

Unwanted phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) has been reported in ∼1 in 4 patients undergoing left ventricular (LV) pacing. The occurrence of PNS over mid-term follow-up and the significance of PNS are less certain. Data from 1307 patients enrolled in pre-market studies of LV leads manufactured by Medtronic (models 4193 and 4195 unipolar, 4194, 4196, 4296, and 4396 bipolar) were pooled. Left ventricular lead location was recorded at implant using a common classification scheme. Phrenic nerve stimulation symptoms were either spontaneously reported or identified at scheduled follow-up visits. A PNS-related complication was defined as PNS resulting in invasive intervention or the termination of LV pacing. Average follow-up was 14.9 months (range 0.0–46.6). Phrenic nerve stimulation symptoms occurred in 169 patients (12.9%). Phrenic nerve stimulation-related complications occurred in 21 of 1307 patients (1.6%); 16 of 738 (2.2%) in the unipolar lead studies, and 5 of 569 (0.9%) in the bipolar lead studies (P = 0.08). Phrenic nerve stimulation was more frequent at middle–lateral/posterior, and apical LV sites (139/1010) vs. basal–posterior/lateral/anterior, and middle–anterior sites (20/297; P= 0.01). As compared with an anterior LV lead position, a lateral LV pacing site was associated with over a four-fold higher risk of PNS (P= 0.005) and an apical LV pacing site was associated with over six-fold higher risk of PNS (P= 0.001). Phrenic nerve stimulation occurred in 13% of patients undergoing LV lead placement and was more common at mid-lateral/posterior, and LV apical sites. Most cases (123/139; 88%) of PNS were mitigated via electrical reprogramming, without the need for invasive intervention.

Comparative studies on the longevity of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) among different manufacturers have never been reported. Longevity of ICD devices implanted from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2002 was prospectively investigated according to their type and manufacturer. Longevity of single-chamber (SC), double-chamber (DC), and biventricular (CRT-D) ICDs from Medtronic (MDT), Guidant (GDT), and St Jude Medical (SJM) was measured in all the patients who required device replacement. The observation follow-up ended on 31 December 2007; patients who died prematurely or were transplanted before battery exhaustion were excluded from the analysis. Factors associated with longevity (number of delivered shocks, pacing activity) were researched. One hundred and fifty-three patients received an ICD in the abovementioned period. Six underwent heart transplantation, and 23 died before device replacement; 80 had an SC device, 59 had DC device, and 14 had CRT-D device. Longevity of MDT was superior to GDT and SJM, replacement rates being, respectively, 42%, 95.3%, and 97.2%. Only MDT manufacturers and SC type were associated with greater ICD longevity. Longevity had an impact on the cost/month of treatment of replaced ICDs. Battery longevity is significantly different among manufacturers. ICD cost is strictly dependent on device longevity, whereas device up-front cost is of limited clinical meaning. Appropriate assessment of cost-effectiveness should be based on ICD longevity in the real-life scenario.