Key result
Simultaneous subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and leadless pacemaker implantation was successful with no device interaction during testing or therapy in a patient lacking vascular access.
Why the study?
Is simultaneous S-ICD and leadless pacemaker implantation safe and feasible in a patient lacking vascular access?
Case Report (n=1)
No
Is simultaneous S-ICD and leadless pacemaker implantation safe and feasible in a patient lacking vascular access?
Simultaneous implantation of an S-ICD and leadless pacemaker is feasible and safe without device interaction in patients lacking vascular access.
Supports feasibility in vascular access-limited patients; leaves open generalizability and long-term safety.
An end-stage renal failure patient who was planned for a left brachioaxillary arteriovenous graft required an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for secondary prevention of ventricular tachycardia and a pacemaker for complete heart block but was found to have a right subclavian venous occlusion. Due to the lack of vascular access, we performed a successful subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) and leadless pacemaker implantation. There was no interaction between the devices at the time of implantation, during defibrillation testing and following an appropriate defibrillation therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ng et al. (2018) conducted a case report in End-stage renal failure, ventricular tachycardia, complete heart block, right subclavian venous occlusion (n=1). Simultaneous subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) and leadless pacemaker implantation was evaluated on Device interaction at implantation, during defibrillation testing, and following appropriate defibrillation therapy. Simultaneous subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and leadless pacemaker implantation was successful with no device interaction during testing or therapy in a patient lacking vascular access.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: