Why the study?
Evolution of T-ICD systems and the introduction of S-ICD have expanded SCD prevention, prompting evaluation of long-term ICD therapy outcomes in children and young adults.
In children and young adults, ICD therapy is associated with a 7.5% long-term mortality (driven by hypertrophic cardiomyopathy) and similar rates of appropriate and inappropriate therapies, with S-ICD emerging as a safe alternative to avoid transvenous lead complications.
BACKGROUND: Over the last several years the evolution of transvenous implantable cardioverter‑defibrillator (T‑ICD) system and the introduction of subcutaneous ICD (S‑ICD) have contributed to the development of the sudden cardiac death (SCD) prevention in clinical practice. AIMS: To report our clinical experience with ICD therapy in children and young adults during the twenty‑ ‑two years of the follow‑up. METHODS: We reviewed the database of ICD recipients choosing 80 consecutive patients (pts) implanted at the age of 6-21 in 1996-2018. We analyzed the rate of appropriate (AT) and inappropriate therapies (IT), mortality, complications and new treatment options. RESULTS: A total of 21/80 patients (26.25%) received ≥1 AT for ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (anti‑tachycardia pacing or shock) and 25/80 patients (31.25%) had one or multiple IT (P = 0.47). Nine patients (11%) had both AT and IT interventions. During follow‑up, 2 (2.5%) cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) systems, and 8 (10%) S‑ICDs were implanted, 3 heart transplantations were performed, and 1 severe tricuspid valve regurgitation occurred. A total of 6/80 patients (7.5%) died. All deaths occurred in the hypertrophic cardiomyopathy group. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rate was 6/80 (7.5%) in the twenty‑two‑year follow‑up. The rate of AT vs. IT was almost equal and remained steady in the long observation period. Severe TR might be a serious clinical problem in some patients. Entirely S‑ICD for SCD prevention is a feasible and safe therapy in young recipients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lewandowski et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: