Key result
S-ICD shows no significant difference in inappropriate therapies versus TV-ICD in drug-induced Brugada syndrome.
Why the study?
No real-world data are available about the complications rate in drug-induced type 1 Brugada Syndrome patients implanted with an ICD.
Does subcutaneous-ICD reduce device-related complications, infections, and inappropriate therapies compared to transvenous-ICD in patients with drug-induced type-1 Brugada Syndrome?
Cohort (n=258)
Yes
Does subcutaneous-ICD reduce device-related complications, infections, and inappropriate therapies compared to transvenous-ICD in patients with drug-induced type-1 Brugada Syndrome?
In patients with drug-induced type-1 Brugada Syndrome, S-ICD is a safe alternative to TV-ICD with comparable overall complication rates and potentially fewer lead-related complications.
S-ICD shows no significant differences vs TV-ICD in complications or therapies in drug-induced BrS; leaves open preferential use pending randomized data.
No real-world data are available about the complications rate in drug-induced type 1 Brugada Syndrome (BrS) patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Aim of our study is to compare the device-related complications, infections, and inappropriate therapies among drug-induced type 1 BrS patients with transvenous- ICD (TV-ICD) versus subcutaneous-ICD (S-ICD). Data for this study were sourced from the IBRYD (Italian BRugada sYnDrome) registry which includes 619 drug-induced type-1 BrS patients followed at 20 Italian tertiary referral hospitals. For the present analysis, we selected 258 consecutive BrS patients implanted with ICD. 198 patients (76.7%) received a TV-ICD, while 60 a S-ICD (23.4%). And were followed-up for a median time of 84.3 [46.5-147] months. ICD inappropriate therapies were experienced by 16 patients (6.2%). 14 patients (7.1%) in the TVICD group and 2 patients (3.3%) in S-ICD group (log-rank P = 0.64). ICD-related complications occurred in 31 patients (12%); 29 (14.6%) in TV-ICD group and 2 (3.3%) in S-ICD group (log-rank P = 0.41). ICD-related infections occurred in 10 patients (3.88%); 9 (4.5%) in TV-ICD group and 1 (1.8%) in S-ICD group (log-rank P = 0.80). After balancing for potential confounders using the propensity score matching technique, no differences were found in terms of clinical outcomes between the two groups. In a real-world setting of drug-induced type-1 BrS patients with ICD, no significant differences in inappropriate ICD therapies, device-related complications, and infections were shown among S-ICD vs TV-ICD. However, a reduction in lead-related complications was observed in the S-ICD group. In conclusion, our evidence suggests that S-ICD is at least non-inferior to TV-ICD in this population and may also reduce the risk of lead-related complications which can expose the patients to the necessity of lead extractions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Russo et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Drug-induced type-1 Brugada syndrome (n=258). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) vs. Transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) was evaluated on Inappropriate ICD therapies (p=0.64). Among patients with drug-induced type-1 Brugada syndrome, subcutaneous ICDs showed no significant difference in inappropriate therapies (3.3% vs 7.1%, p=0.64) compared to transvenous ICDs.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: