The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator demonstrated a 97.3% 30-day complication-free rate, with 6.2% appropriate and 7% inappropriate shocks over 35 months of follow-up.
Observational (n=114)
Yes
Does the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) provide efficacy and safety in patients at high risk for ventricular arrhythmias?
In a real-world multicenter registry, the S-ICD demonstrated high efficacy and safety with low complication rates over a 35-month follow-up.
Abstract Background Τhe advent of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) marked a significant milestone in the course of cardiac rhythm devices, particularly for patients who are deemed at high risk for ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. This extracardiac approach makes the S-ICD an especially valuable option for young patients, those with difficult venous access, or those at high risk of infection. Although the S-ICD does not provide pacing for bradycardia or heart failure, it has shown efficacy in treating ventricular arrhythmias while minimizing complications associated with transvenous systems. Methods The purpose of this multicenter retrospective analysis was to assess the real-world efficacy and safety of the S-ICD in a heterogeneous population. Results The GASP registry consisted of 114 patients, 68% male, aged 41 ± 15 years, with a mean LVEF of 50%. In the follow-up of 35 months, inappropriate shocks occurred in 7% while appropriate shocks occurred in 6.2%. The most common reasons for inappropriate shocks were myopotentials and atrial tachyarrhythmias. Thirty-day complication-free rates were 97.3%, with the majority of patients requiring device extraction due to infection. Over the longer term, four patients required re-intervention due to local discomfort, while one device was extracted for infection. In a multivariate analysis, complications were not significantly higher in the sicker population, such as those with diabetes, kidney disease requiring dialysis, or heart failure. Conclusions These findings support the growing role of the S-ICD as an alternative to the TV-ICD, especially in patients without pacing indications.
Milaras et al. (Mon,) conducted a observational in High risk for ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (n=114). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) was evaluated on Efficacy and safety (appropriate shocks, inappropriate shocks, and 30-day complication-free rates). The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator demonstrated a 97.3% 30-day complication-free rate, with 6.2% appropriate and 7% inappropriate shocks over 35 months of follow-up.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: