Key result
Extracardiac ICDs linked to ~123% more appropriate shocks versus transvenous systems, with similar inappropriate shocks.
Why the study?
Does an extracardiac (EC)-ICD system compared to a transvenous ICD system affect the rate of appropriate and inappropriate shocks in paediatric and congenital heart disease patients?
Cohort (n=195)
No
Does an extracardiac (EC)-ICD system compared to a transvenous ICD system affect the rate of appropriate and inappropriate shocks in paediatric and congenital heart disease patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 29% vs 13%
p-value: p=0.02
In pediatric and congenital heart disease patients, extracardiac ICDs are associated with a higher rate of appropriate shocks and lead failures compared to transvenous systems, but similar rates of inappropriate shocks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Should not yet change ICD selection in pediatric CHD; hypothesis-generating for system-specific shock differences.
Krause et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Congenital heart disease (n=195). Extracardiac (EC) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator vs. Transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was evaluated on Appropriate ICD shocks (p=0.02). Extracardiac ICDs were associated with a higher rate of appropriate shocks compared to transvenous systems (29% vs. 13%, P=0.02), but had similar rates of inappropriate shocks (12% vs. 11%, P=0.26).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: