Why the study?
Does subcutaneous ICD therapy reduce complications and shocks compared to transvenous ICD therapy in patients requiring de novo ICDs without pacing needs?
Does subcutaneous ICD therapy reduce complications and shocks compared to transvenous ICD therapy in patients requiring de novo ICDs without pacing needs?
S-ICD therapy demonstrates similar complication rates and inappropriate shock burden, but lower appropriate shock rates compared to contemporary TV-ICD therapy at 3 years.
Supports S-ICD safety in real-world use; leaves open randomized confirmation of lower appropriate shock rates.
Aims: Comparison of outcomes between subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD and TV-ICD) therapy is hampered by varying patient characteristics and complication definitions. The aim of this analysis is to compare clinical outcomes of S-ICD and TV-ICD therapy in a matched cohort. Methods and results: Patients implanted with de novo implantable cardioverter-defibrillators without need for pacing were selected from two studies: SIMPLE (n = 1091 single and n = 553 dual chamber TV-ICDs) and EFFORTLESS (n = 798 S-ICDs). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients were 1:1 matched on propensity score to TV-ICD patients. Propensity scores were calculated using 15 baseline characteristics including diagnosis. The Kaplan-Meier estimates for complications requiring invasive intervention, appropriate shocks, and inappropriate shocks were calculated at 3 years follow-up. The primary analysis yielded 391 patients pairs with balanced baseline characteristics, with mean age 55 ± 14 years, 49% ischaemic cardiomyopathy, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 40%, 71% primary prevention, and 89% of TV-ICDs were single chamber. Follow-up was mean 2.9 years in the S-ICD arm vs. 3.3 in the TV-ICD arm. All-cause complications occurred in 9.0% of S-ICD vs. 6.5% of TV-ICD patients, P = 0.29. Appropriate shocks occurred in 9.9% of S-ICD vs. 13.8% in TV-ICD patients, P = 0.03 and inappropriate shocks in 11.9% in S-ICD vs. 8.9% in TV-ICD patients (P = 0.07). Total shock burden (20 vs. 31, P = 0.05) and appropriate shock burden per 100 patients years (9 vs. 18, P = 0.02) were lower for S-ICD patients, while inappropriate shock burden was equal (11 vs. 13, P = 0.56). Conclusion: The earliest experience of the S-ICD demonstrates similar outcomes as contemporary TV-ICD therapy in a matched comparison with predominately single-chamber devices at 3 years follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brouwer et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: