Key result
S-ICDs yield ~3% appropriate shocks over 4 years in Brugada syndrome.
Why the study?
Does subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy provide effective and safe defibrillation in patients with Brugada syndrome?
Observational (n=450)
Yes
Does subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy provide effective and safe defibrillation in patients with Brugada syndrome?
S-ICD therapy is a viable and safe alternative to transvenous ICDs for preventing sudden cardiac death in Brugada syndrome patients without pacing indications.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports S-ICD consideration in Brugada syndrome without pacing needs; leaves open randomized comparison to transvenous ICDs.
BACKGROUND: The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is recognized as the most effective life-saving therapy in patients with Brugada syndrome (BrS). However, transvenous ICD is associated with a notable rate of complications over time. The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has emerged as a promising alternative to the transvenous ICD. Nevertheless, long-term data from large cohorts of BrS patients with S-ICDs are lacking. OBJECTIVES: This multicenter study aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of S-ICD therapy in patients with BrS. METHODS: The study included 450 consecutive BrS patients (mean age 43 ± 12; 86% male) who underwent S-ICD implantation between 2014 and 2024. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 52 months (25th-75th percentile: 29-72), appropriate shocks were delivered in 3% of patients (1.2%; 95% CI: 0.2-2.2, at 12 months), with a first-shock success rate of 90% (100% with 2 shocks). Inappropriate shocks occurred in 7% of patients (1.4%; 95% CI: 0.3-2.5, at 12 months). Shock zone programmed at 250 beats/min (HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.18-0.89; P = 0.025) and more than 1 suitable vector on screening (HR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.17-0.87; P = 0.023) were independent protective factors against inappropriate shock. Device-related complications were reported in 4% of patients (2.5%; 95% CI: 1.0-3.9 at 12 months). The need for antibradycardia pacing was reported in 3 patients (0.7%). No device explantation because of the need for antitachycardia pacing was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the S-ICD as a viable alternative to the transvenous ICD for preventing sudden cardiac death in BrS patients without pacing indication (Arrhythmias Detection in a Real World Population [RHYTHM DETECT]; NCT02275637).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Migliore et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Brugada syndrome (n=450). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) was evaluated on Appropriate shocks. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in Brugada syndrome patients resulted in appropriate shocks in 3% of patients, inappropriate shocks in 7%, and device-related complications in 4% over a median follow-up of 52 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: