BACKGROUND: Inappropriate therapy (IAT) is an undesirable side effect of implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Early studies with the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) showed relatively high inappropriate shock (IAS) rates. The PRAETORIAN (Prospective Randomized Comparison of Subcutaneous and Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy) trial demonstrated that the S-ICD is noninferior to the transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) with regard to the combined end point of IAS and complications. This secondary analyses evaluates all IAT in the PRAETORIAN trial. METHODS: This international, multicenter trial randomized 849 patients with an indication for ICD therapy between S-ICD (n=426) and TV-ICD therapy (n=423). ICD programming was mandated by protocol. All analysis were performed in the modified intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: In both groups 42 patients experienced IAT (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimated cumulative incidence, 9.9% and 10.1%, respectively; hazard ratio (HR), 0.99 [95% CI, 0.65-1.52]; P=0.97). There was no significant difference in patients experiencing IAS between both groups (P=0.14). In the S-ICD group, 81 IAT episodes with 124 IAS and 1 inappropriate antitachycardia pacing occurred versus 89 IAT episodes with 130 IAS and 124 inappropriate antitachycardia pacing in the TV-ICD group. IAT episodes were most frequently caused by supraventricular tachycardias in the TV-ICD group (n=83/89) versus cardiac oversensing in the S-ICD group (n=40/81). In the TV-ICD group, a baseline heart rate >80 bpm (HR, 1.99 [95% CI, 1.05-3.76]; P=0.03), a history of atrial fibrillation (HR, 2.66 [95% CI, 1.41-5.02]; P=0.003), and smoking (HR, 2.46 [95% CI, 1.31-4.09]; P=0.005) were independent predictors for IAT. A QRS duration >120 ms was an independent predictor for IAT caused by cardiac oversensing in the S-ICD group (HR, 3.13 [95% CI, 1.34-7.31]; P=0.008). Post-IAS interventions significantly reduced IAS recurrence in both groups (P=0.046). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in IAT and IAS rates between the S-ICD and TV-ICD in a conventional ICD population, but causes and predictors for IAT differed between the devices. After the first IAS, an intervention significantly reduced the recurrence rate of IAS. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01296022.

• MeSH
• časové faktory MeSH
• defibrilátory implantabilní * MeSH
• elektrická defibrilace * přístrojové vybavení   škodlivé účinky   MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• prospektivní studie MeSH
• rizikové faktory MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• výsledek terapie MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mužské pohlaví MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• ženské pohlaví MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• multicentrická studie MeSH
• randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH
• srovnávací studie MeSH

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) was developed to overcome the risk of lead-related complications associated with the transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD). In contrast to the TV-ICD, the S-ICD is a completely extrathoracic device. Subsequently, complications differ between these 2 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, which might impact patient perceptions of the therapies. This prespecified secondary analysis of the PRAETORIAN trial evaluates differences in quality of life. METHODS: The PRAETORIAN trial (A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Subcutaneous and Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy) randomized patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator indication, without the need for pacing to S-ICD or TV-ICD therapy. Two questionnaires were collected at baseline, discharge, 12 months, and 30 months. The Duke Activity Status Index measures cardiac-specific physical functioning, and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey measures physical and mental well-being, with the subscales bodily pain and mental health being of interest in this analysis. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare study arms, and a mixed model was used to describe the questionnaire outcomes over time. RESULTS: Patients were randomized to S-ICD (n=426) and TV-ICD (n=423). In the S-ICD group, 20% were women versus 19% in the TV-ICD group. The median age was 63 (interquartile range, 54-69) years in the S-ICD group versus 64 (interquartile range, 56-69) years in the TV-ICD group. There were no significant differences in the Duke Activity Status Index and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey subscales for bodily pain and mental health between the groups at any time point. Patients with a shock in the last 90 days had significantly lower scores for social functioning (P=0.008) and role limitations due to emotional problems (P=0.001) than patients without a shock, but this effect did not differ between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: In a large randomized cohort of patients with an S-ICD or TV-ICD, no difference in overall quality of life was observed. However, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks resulted in a reduction in quality of life, regardless of the device type or appropriateness. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01296022.

• MeSH
• časové faktory MeSH
• defibrilátory implantabilní * MeSH
• duševní zdraví * MeSH
• elektrická defibrilace * přístrojové vybavení   škodlivé účinky   MeSH
• funkční status MeSH
• kvalita života * MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• náhlá srdeční smrt prevence a kontrola   MeSH
• prospektivní studie MeSH
• protézy - design MeSH
• průzkumy a dotazníky MeSH
• rizikové faktory MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• srdeční arytmie terapie   diagnóza   patofyziologie   MeSH
• výsledek terapie MeSH
• zdravotní stav MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mužské pohlaví MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• ženské pohlaví MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• multicentrická studie MeSH
• randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH
• srovnávací studie MeSH

BACKGROUND: The PRAETORIAN trial (A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Subcutaneous and Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy) showed noninferiority of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) compared with transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) with regard to inappropriate shocks and complications. In contrast to TV-ICD, S-ICD cannot provide antitachycardia pacing for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates appropriate therapy and whether antitachycardia pacing reduces the number of appropriate shocks. METHODS: The PRAETORIAN trial was an international, investigator-initiated randomized trial that included patients with an indication for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Patients with previous ventricular tachycardia <170 bpm or refractory recurrent monomorphic ventricular tachycardia were excluded. In 39 centers, 849 patients were randomized to receive an S-ICD (n=426) or TV-ICD (n=423) and were followed for a median of 49.1 months. ICD programming was mandated by protocol. Appropriate ICD therapy was defined as therapy for ventricular arrhythmias. Arrhythmias were classified as discrete episodes and storm episodes (≥3 episodes within 24 hours). Analyses were performed in the modified intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: In the S-ICD group, 86 of 426 patients received appropriate therapy, versus 78 of 423 patients in the TV-ICD group, during a median follow-up of 52 months (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimates 19.4% and 17.5%; P=0.45). In the S-ICD group, 83 patients received at least 1 shock, versus 57 patients in the TV-ICD group (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimates 19.2% and 11.5%; P=0.02). Patients in the S-ICD group had a total of 254 shocks, compared with 228 shocks in the TV-ICD group (P=0.68). First shock efficacy was 93.8% in the S-ICD group and 91.6% in the TV-ICD group (P=0.40). The first antitachycardia pacing attempt successfully terminated 46% of all monomorphic ventricular tachycardias, but accelerated the arrhythmia in 9.4%. Ten patients with S-ICD experienced 13 electrical storms, versus 18 patients with TV-ICD with 19 electrical storms. Patients with appropriate therapy had an almost 2-fold increased relative risk of electrical storms in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group (P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, no difference was observed in shock efficacy of S-ICD compared with TV-ICD. Although patients in the S-ICD group were more likely to receive an ICD shock, the total number of appropriate shocks was not different between the 2 groups. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01296022.

• MeSH
• defibrilátory implantabilní normy   MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• prospektivní studie MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• srdeční arytmie diagnóza   terapie   MeSH
• výsledek terapie MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mužské pohlaví MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• ženské pohlaví MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH
• randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH