Why the study?
When an ICD lead malfunctions, recommendations exist for abandonment or removal, but outcomes of lead abandonment combined with S-ICD implantation required investigation.
Does lead abandonment and S-ICD implantation improve safety outcomes compared to lead extraction and T-ICD reimplantation in patients with ICD lead malfunction?
Does lead abandonment and S-ICD implantation improve safety outcomes compared to lead extraction and T-ICD reimplantation in patients with ICD lead malfunction?
Lead abandonment and S-ICD implantation is a feasible and safe alternative to lead extraction and T-ICD reimplantation in patients with ICD lead malfunction.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May offer a feasible option for non-pacing patients with lead malfunction; leaves open need for randomized trials versus extraction.
Background: When an implantable-cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead becomes non-functional, a recommendation currently exists for either lead abandonment or removal. Lead abandonment and subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) implantation may represent an additional option for patients who do not require pacing. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of a strategy of lead abandonment and S-ICD implantation in the setting of lead malfunction. Methods: We analyzed all consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD implantation after abandonment of malfunctioning leads and compared their outcomes with those of patients who underwent extraction and subsequent reimplantation of a single-chamber transvenous ICD (T-ICD). Results: Forty-three patients underwent S-ICD implantation after abandonment of malfunctioning leads, while 62 patients underwent extraction and subsequent reimplantation of a new T-ICD. The two groups were comparable. In the extraction group, no major complications occurred during extraction, while the procedure failed and an S-ICD was implanted in 4 patients. During a median follow-up of 21 months, 3 major complications or deaths occurred in the S-ICD group and 11 in the T-ICD group (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.29–3.94; P = 0.912). Minor complications were 4 in the S-ICD group and 5 in the T-ICD group (HR 2.13; 95% CI 0.49–9.24; P = 0.238). Conclusions: In the event of ICD lead malfunction, extraction avoids the potential long-term risks of abandoned leads. Nonetheless the strategy of lead abandonment and S-ICD implantation was feasible and safe, with no significant increase in adverse outcomes, and may represent an option in selected clinical settings. Further studies are needed to fully understand the potential risks of lead abandonment. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02275637
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Russo et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: