BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was designed to avoid complications related to the transvenous ICD lead by using an entirely extrathoracic placement. Evidence comparing these systems has been based primarily on observational studies. METHODS: We conducted a noninferiority trial in which patients with an indication for an ICD but no indication for pacing were assigned to receive a subcutaneous ICD or transvenous ICD. The primary end point was the composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks; the noninferiority margin for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio (subcutaneous ICD vs. transvenous ICD) was 1.45. A superiority analysis was prespecified if noninferiority was established. Secondary end points included death and appropriate shocks. RESULTS: A total of 849 patients (426 in the subcutaneous ICD group and 423 in the transvenous ICD group) were included in the analyses. At a median follow-up of 49.1 months, a primary end-point event occurred in 68 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 68 patients in the transvenous ICD group (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimated cumulative incidence, 15.1% and 15.7%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.39; P = 0.01 for noninferiority; P = 0.95 for superiority). Device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 44 in the transvenous ICD group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.09); inappropriate shocks occurred in 41 and 29 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.89 to 2.30). Death occurred in 83 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 68 in the transvenous ICD group (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.70); appropriate shocks occurred in 83 and 57 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.08 to 2.12). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with an indication for an ICD but no indication for pacing, the subcutaneous ICD was noninferior to the transvenous ICD with respect to device-related complications and inappropriate shocks. (Funded by Boston Scientific; PRAETORIAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01296022.).

From the Heart Center Department of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Amsterdam University Medical Centers University of Amsterdam

Komentář v

N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 6;383(6):587-588. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe2022198. PubMed

Komentář v

Nat Rev Cardiol. 2020 Nov;17(11):678. doi: 10.1038/s41569-020-00440-0. PubMed

Komentář v

N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 18;384(7):676-677. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2034917. PubMed

Komentář v

N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 18;384(7):677. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2034917. PubMed

Komentář v

N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 18;384(7):677-678. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2034917. PubMed

Komentář v

N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 18;384(7):678. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2034917. PubMed

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

One-Year Outcomes of the MODULAR ATP Trial: A Novel Leadless Pacemaker in Wireless Communication With a Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

Device-Related Complications in Transvenous Versus Subcutaneous Defibrillator Therapy During Long-Term Follow-Up: The PRAETORIAN-XL Trial

Quality of Life in Subcutaneous or Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Patients: A Secondary Analysis of the PRAETORIAN Trial

Design and rationale of the MODULAR ATP global clinical trial: A novel intercommunicative leadless pacing system and the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Device-related complications in subcutaneous versus transvenous ICD: a secondary analysis of the PRAETORIAN trial

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: long-term results of the EFFORTLESS study

Management of ventricular arrhythmias in heart failure: Current perspectives

Zobrazit více v PubMed

ClinicalTrials.gov
NCT01296022