Why the study?
In patients with prior sternotomy, sternal wires may challenge lead positioning and potentially interfere with S-ICD sensing or defibrillation, but supporting evidence in this setting is limited.
Does subcutaneous ICD therapy provide safe and effective outcomes in patients with prior sternotomy compared to those without?
Does subcutaneous ICD therapy provide safe and effective outcomes in patients with prior sternotomy compared to those without?
S-ICD implantation is safe and effective in patients with prior sternotomy, with complication and inappropriate shock rates comparable to patients without prior sternotomy.
Supports S-ICD feasibility post-sternotomy with comparable outcomes; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
Background The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an established alternative to transvenous ICD for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. In patients with a history of sternotomy, however, the presence of sternal wires may challenge optimal lead positioning and could theoretically interfere with sensing or defibrillation performance. Evidence supporting S-ICD use in this setting is currently limited. Objectives To evaluate the feasibility of S-ICD implantation and device outcomes in patients with prior sternotomy. Methods Within the framework of the prospective "Rhythm Detect" registry, we analyzed consecutive patients who had undergone S-ICD implantation across 33 Italian centers between 2014 to 2024. Patients with a history of median sternotomy were propensity-matched to patients without sternotomy, and outcomes were compared between groups. Results Among 2,123 S-ICD implants, 259 patients (12%) had prior sternotomy, after 1:1 propensity matching, 518 patients were included (259 with vs 259 without sternotomy). Defibrillation testing was performed in 325 patients (63%), with successful conversion ≤65 J in 314 patients (97%; Sternotomy Group 98% vs Non-sternotomy Group 95%, p=0.228). A PRAETORIAN score <90 was observed in 99% of the Sternotomy Group vs 96% of the Non- sternotomy Group (p=0.214). Over a median follow-up of 43 months (IQR 22–71), the annualized rates of device-related complications (1.4%/year vs 1.1%/year, HR 1.21, p=0.650) and inappropriate shocks (2.2%/year vs 1.8%/year, HR 1.08, p=0.811) were similar between groups (Kaplan–Meier survival curves are shown in the Figure). No oversensing related to sternal wires was observed. The annualized rate of appropriate shocks was 2.2% /year in both groups, with first-therapy success in 95% and 100% final conversion in both groups. Conclusions In patients with previous cardiac surgery, the S-ICD provided safe and effective protection from ventricular arrhythmias. These findings support the S-ICD as a valid treatment option in this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Checchi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: