Comparative outcomes of subcutaneous and transvenous cardioverter-defibrillators.
10.1097/CM9.0000000000000133
- Author:
Jin-Jun LIANG
1
;
Hideo OKAMURA
2
;
Roshini ASIRVATHAM
2
;
Andrew SCHNEIDER
3
;
David O HODGE
4
;
Mei YANG
2
;
Xu-Ping LI
2
;
Ming-Yan DAI
2
;
Ying TIAN
2
;
Pei ZHANG
2
;
Bryan C CANNON
3
;
Cong-Xin HUANG
1
;
Paul A FRIEDMAN
2
;
Yong-Mei CHA
2
Author Information
1. Department of Cardiology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei 430060, China.
2. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
3. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
4. Biostatistics Unit, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.
- Publication Type:Clinical Trial
- MeSH:
Adult;
Cardiomyopathy, Hypertrophic;
physiopathology;
therapy;
Death, Sudden, Cardiac;
prevention & control;
Defibrillators, Implantable;
Electrocardiography;
Female;
Humans;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Tachycardia, Ventricular;
physiopathology;
therapy
- From:
Chinese Medical Journal
2019;132(6):631-637
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND:The comparative outcomes of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) and transvenous ICD (T-ICD) have not been well studied. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of currently available S-ICD and T-ICD.
METHODS:The study included 86 patients who received an S-ICD and 1:1 matched to those who received single-chamber T-ICD by gender, age, diagnosis, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and implant year. The clinical outcomes and implant complications were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS:The mean age of the 172 patients was 45 years, and 129 (75%) were male. The most common cardiac condition was hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM, 37.8%). The mean LVEF was 50%. At a mean follow-up of 23 months, the appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapy rate were 1.2% vs. 4.7% (χ = 1.854, P = 0.368) and 9.3% vs. 3.5% (χ = 2.428, P = 0.211) in S-ICD and T-ICD groups respectively. There were no significant differences in device-related major and minor complications between the two groups (7.0% vs. 3.5%, χ = 1.055, P = 0.496). The S-ICD group had higher T-wave oversensing than T-ICD group (9.3% vs. 0%, χ = 8.390, P = 0.007). Sixty-five patients had HCM (32 in S-ICD and 33 in T-ICD). The incidence of major complications was not significantly different between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS:The efficacy of an S-ICD is comparable to that of T-ICD, especially in a dominantly HCM patient population. The S-ICD is associated with fewer major complications demanding reoperation.
