Key result
S-ICD linked to ~2-fold higher rate of inappropriate shock reports vs transvenous ICD.
Why the study?
Although clinical trials and registries suggest inappropriate shock rates are similar or slightly higher with S-ICDs compared with transvenous ICDs, little data exist regarding S-ICD inappropriate shocks in everyday practice.
Does the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) result in different rates and causes of inappropriate shocks compared to transvenous single-chamber ICDs in real-world practice?
Observational (n=29,748)
Does the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) result in different rates and causes of inappropriate shocks compared to transvenous single-chamber ICDs in real-world practice?
Real-world FDA MAUDE database reports indicate that subcutaneous ICDs are associated with a higher proportion of inappropriate shocks—primarily due to oversensing—compared to transvenous ICDs, highlighting a potential discrepancy with clinical trial findings.
Real-world S-ICD reports may warrant caution in device selection; challenges trial consensus on similar shock rates and leaves open prospective validation.
Background: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has been shown to be safe and effective for preventing sudden cardiac death. Clinical trial and registry data suggest that the incidence of S-ICD inappropriate shocks (IAS) is similar to or slightly higher than IAS from transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. However, little data exist for S-ICD IAS in everyday practice. Objective: This study aimed to assess IAS events reported by Boston Scientific (BSC) to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its Emblem S-ICDs and transvenous single-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (TV-VR ICDs). Methods: We searched for reports of Emblem S-ICD and TV-VR ICD adverse events (AEs) in the FDA's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database that were received by the FDA from BSC during 2020-2024. Results: In 2024, BSC estimated 153,000 Emblem S-ICDs and 353,000 of its TV-VR ICDs were distributed worldwide. During 2020-2024, BSC submitted 22,957 MAUDE AE reports for Emblem S-ICDs and 6791 MAUDE AE reports for TV-VR ICDs. Of these, 5363 (23.4%) involved IAS for S-ICDs and 813 IAS (11.7%) for TV-VR ICDs. The most common cause of S-ICD IAS was oversensing of physiological and nonphysiological signals (91.1%; 4885 of 5363), whereas rapid atrial fibrillation or supraventricular tachycardia caused 69.5% of TV-VR ICD IAS. Emblem S-ICD IAS induced ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia in 69 patients and failed to defibrillate/convert 4 of them. Conclusion: These real-word data suggest that S-ICD IAS may be more common than previously reported. The incidence, root causes, and consequences of these IAS in the general population of S-ICD recipients should be investigated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hauser et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients (n=29,748). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (Emblem S-ICD) vs. Transvenous single-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-VR ICD) was evaluated on Proportion of adverse event reports involving inappropriate shocks. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators were associated with a substantially higher proportion of inappropriate shock adverse event reports (23.4%) compared to transvenous devices (11.7%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: