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
BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is developed to overcome lead-related complications and systemic infections, inherent to transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) therapy. The PRAETORIAN trial demonstrated that the S-ICD is non-inferior to the TV-ICD with regard to the combined primary endpoint of inappropriate shocks and complications. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates all complications in the PRAETORIAN trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PRAETORIAN trial is an international, multicentre, randomized trial in which 849 patients with an indication for ICD therapy were randomized to receive an S- ICD (N = 426) or TV-ICD (N = 423) and followed for a median of 49 months. Endpoints were device-related complications, lead-related complications, systemic infections, and the need for invasive interventions. Thirty-six device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the S-ICD group of which bleedings were the most frequent. In the TV-ICD group, 49 complications occurred in 44 patients of which lead dysfunction was most frequent (HR: 0.69; P = 0.11). In both groups, half of all complications were within 30 days after implantation. Lead-related complications and systemic infections occurred significantly less in the S-ICD group compared with the TV-ICD group (P < 0.001, P = 0.03, respectively). Significantly more complications required invasive interventions in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group (8.3% vs. 4.3%, HR: 0.59; P = 0.047). CONCLUSION: This secondary analysis shows that lead-related complications and systemic infections are more prevalent in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group. In addition, complications in the TV-ICD group were more severe as they required significantly more invasive interventions. This data contributes to shared decision-making in clinical practice.
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.).
- MeSH
- defibrilátory implantabilní škodlivé účinky MeSH
- implantované elektrody škodlivé účinky MeSH
- incidence MeSH
- Kaplanův-Meierův odhad MeSH
- kardiomyopatie terapie MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- náhlá srdeční smrt epidemiologie prevence a kontrola MeSH
- následné studie MeSH
- nemoci srdce terapie MeSH
- protézy - design MeSH
- selhání zařízení MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- srdeční arytmie terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- hodnocení ekvivalence MeSH
- multicentrická studie MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
BACKGROUND: The advent of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) was considered as a potential improvement in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after the groundbreaking development of drug eluting stents (DES). However, the clinical performance, long-term safety and efficacy of BVS in complex coronary lesions remain uncertain. COMPARE ABSORB, a multicenter, single blind, prospective randomized trial, aims to compare the clinical outcomes between the Absorb BVS and Xience everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in patients with coronary artery disease and a high risk of restenosis. DESIGN: COMPARE ABSORB is designed to enroll 2100 patients at up to 45 European sites. Enrolled patients will possess high risk for restenosis due to clinical profile or coronary lesion complexity and will undergo elective or emergent PCI. Once included in the study, patients will receive either Absorb BVS or Xience EES. Specific advice on implantation technique including mandatory pre-dilatation, sizing and post-dilatation (PSP), will be used in the Absorb BVS arm. The primary endpoint is target lesion failure (TLF), a device-oriented composite endpoint (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and clinically-indicated target lesion revascularization). The trial is powered to assess non-inferiority of Absorb BVS compared with Xience EES with a predetermined non-inferiority margin of 4.5% at 1 year after index procedure. The clinical follow-up will continue for 7 years. CONCLUSIONS: The prospective COMPARE ABSORB randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.govNCT02486068) will help to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of Absorb BVS compared with Xience EES in the treatments of patients with complex coronary artery disease and a high attendant risk of restenosis.
- MeSH
- balónková koronární angioplastika škodlivé účinky přístrojové vybavení mortalita MeSH
- časové faktory MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- hodnocení rizik MeSH
- jednoduchá slepá metoda MeSH
- koronární restenóza diagnostické zobrazování etiologie mortalita prevence a kontrola MeSH
- kovy * MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mladiství MeSH
- mladý dospělý MeSH
- multicentrické studie jako téma MeSH
- nemoci koronárních tepen diagnostické zobrazování mortalita terapie MeSH
- ochranné faktory MeSH
- prospektivní studie MeSH
- protézy - design MeSH
- rizikové faktory MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- stenty * MeSH
- vstřebatelné implantáty * MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mladiství MeSH
- mladý dospělý MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- protokol klinické studie MeSH
- Geografické názvy
- Evropa MeSH
