Performance of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with a primary prevention indication with and without a reduced ejection fraction versus patients with a secondary prevention indication
Language English Country United States Media print-electronic
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article
PubMed
27890798
DOI
10.1016/j.hrthm.2016.11.025
PII: S1547-5271(16)31070-0
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Appropriate shock, Ejection fraction, Primary prevention, Secondary prevention, Subcutaneous ICD,
- MeSH
- Defibrillators, Implantable * MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Ventricular Dysfunction, Left * diagnosis physiopathology MeSH
- Electric Countershock * adverse effects instrumentation methods MeSH
- Kaplan-Meier Estimate MeSH
- Tachycardia, Ventricular * mortality therapy MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Death, Sudden, Cardiac prevention & control MeSH
- Primary Prevention methods statistics & numerical data MeSH
- Prosthesis Fitting MeSH
- Registries MeSH
- Secondary Prevention methods statistics & numerical data MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Stroke Volume MeSH
- Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable defibrillator (S-ICD) provides an alternative to the transvenous ICD for the prevention of sudden cardiac death, but has not been well studied in the most commonly treated transvenous ICD patient population, namely, primary prevention (PP) patients with left ventricular dysfunction. OBJECTIVE: The analyses in the present study were designed to compare clinical outcomes for PP patients with and without a reduced ejection fraction (EF) and secondary prevention (SP) patients implanted with the S-ICD. METHODS: All patients 18 years and older from the S-ICD IDE study and the EFFORTLESS Registry with available data as of November 18, 2013, were included (n = 856; mean follow-up duration 644 days). Outcomes were evaluated in 2 analyses: (1) comparing all PP patients (n = 603, 70.4%) with all SP patients (n = 253, 29.6%) and (2) comparing all PP patients with an EF ≤35% (n = 379) with those with an EF >35% (n = 149, 17.4%). RESULTS: No differences were observed in mortality, complications, inappropriate therapy, or ability to convert ventricular tachyarrhythmias between SP and PP patients. However, SP patients had a higher incidence of appropriate therapy than did PP patients (11.9% vs 5.0%; P = .0004). In the PP subanalysis, the cohort with an EF ≤35% had significantly older patients with more comorbidities and higher mortality (3.0% annually vs 0.0%). Despite these differences, device-related complications, conversion efficacy, and incidence of inappropriate shock therapies were not significantly different between PP subgroups. CONCLUSION: The S-ICD performs well in protecting patients with either PP or SP implant indications from sudden cardiac death. Within PP patients, device performance was independent of EF.
Boston Scientific Corporation St Paul Minnesota
Emory University Hospital Atlanta Georgia
Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam The Netherlands
Heart Rhythm Center University of Chicago Chicago Illinois
Homolka Hospital Prague Czech Republic
Medical University of South Carolina Charleston South Carolina
Novant Health Presbyterian Medical Center Charlotte North Carolina
Ohio State University Columbus Ohio
Russell Hall Hospital Dudley United Kingdom
References provided by Crossref.org
Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: long-term results of the EFFORTLESS study