Subcutaneous ICD screening with the Boston Scientific ZOOM programmer versus a 12-lead ECG machine.

Background: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) requires preimplant screening to ensure appropriate sensing and reduce risk of inappropriate shocks. Screening can be performed using either an ICD programmer or a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) machine. It is unclear whether differences in signal filtering and digital sampling change the screening success rate.

Methods: Subjects were recruited if they had a transvenous single-lead ICD without pacing requirements or were candidates for a new ICD. Screening was performed using both a Boston Scientific ZOOM programmer (Marlborough, MA, USA) and General Electric MAC 5000 ECG machine (Fairfield, CT, USA). A pass was defined as having at least one lead that fit within the screening template in both supine and sitting positions.

Results: A total of 69 subjects were included and 27 sets of ECG leads had differing screening results between the two machines (7%). Of these sets, 22 (81%) passed using the ECG machine but failed using the programmer and five (19%) passed using the ECG machine but failed using the programmer (P < 0.001). Four subjects (6%) passed screening using the ECG machine but failed using the programmer. No subject passed screening with the programmer but failed with the ECG machine.

Conclusion: There can be occasional disagreement in S-ICD patient screening between an ICD programmer and ECG machine, all of whom passed with the ECG machine but failed using the programmer. On a per lead basis, the ECG machine passes more subjects. It is unknown what the inappropriate shock rate would be if an S-ICD was implanted. Clinical judgment should be used in borderline cases.