BACKGROUND: The PRAETORIAN trial (A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Subcutaneous and Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy) investigated the efficacy and safety of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) compared with a transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) and showed noninferiority of the S-ICD with regard to the composite end point of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks after 49.1 months. Complications associated with transvenous leads are expected to occur after longer follow-up. The PRAETORIAN-XL trial aims to investigate whether the S-ICD is superior to the TV-ICD with respect to device-related complications at 8-year follow-up. METHODS: The PRAETORIAN trial randomized patients with a class I or IIa indication for ICD therapy without the need for pacing to either S-ICD or TV-ICD among 39 centers in the United States and Europe between March 2011 and January 2017. The follow-up was extended after 49.1 months by an additional 4 years for the PRAETORIAN-XL trial. The primary end point was the composite of all device-related complications. Complications could be related or unrelated to the lead and minor or major, with major complications being those requiring an invasive intervention. End points were analyzed according to the modified intention-to-treat principle using a Fine-Gray subdistribution hazards model to account for competing risks. An as-treated analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with device type as time-dependent variable. RESULTS: Patients were randomized to S-ICD (n=426) and TV-ICD (n=423). Twenty-one percent of the S-ICD group versus 18% of the TV-ICD group were women. The median age at implantation was 63 (interquartile range, 54-69) years for the S-ICD and 64 (interquartile range, 56-69) years for the TV-ICD. After a median follow-up of 87.5 months, all device-related complications (major and minor combined) were not significantly different in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.48-1.12]); P=0.15). However, TV-ICD patients more often had a major complication or lead-related complication (P=0.03 and P<0.001, respectively). Moreover, the as-treated analysis showed significantly more complications in patients with a TV-ICD compared with an S-ICD (hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.41-0.99]; P=0.047). CONCLUSIONS: The PRAETORIAN-XL trial demonstrated that there was no significant difference between the S-ICD and TV-ICD in all device-related complications during long-term follow-up. However, the TV-ICD carries a higher risk of major and lead-related complications compared with S-ICD therapy. The S-ICD should therefore be considered for all patients without a pacing indication who are evaluated for ICD therapy. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01296022.

• Keywords
• complications, defibrillators, implantable, electrophysiology,
• MeSH
• Time Factors MeSH
• Defibrillators, Implantable * adverse effects   MeSH
• Electric Countershock * instrumentation   adverse effects   MeSH
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Follow-Up Studies MeSH
• Prospective Studies MeSH
• Aged MeSH
• Treatment Outcome MeSH
• Check Tag
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Male MeSH
• Aged MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Multicenter Study MeSH
• Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
• Comparative Study MeSH

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Risk stratification of sudden cardiac death after myocardial infarction and prevention by defibrillator rely on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Improved risk stratification across the whole LVEF range is required for decision-making on defibrillator implantation. METHODS: The analysis pooled 20 data sets with 140 204 post-myocardial infarction patients containing information on demographics, medical history, clinical characteristics, biomarkers, electrocardiography, echocardiography, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Separate analyses were performed in patients (i) carrying a primary prevention cardioverter-defibrillator with LVEF ≤ 35% [implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients], (ii) without cardioverter-defibrillator with LVEF ≤ 35% (non-ICD patients ≤ 35%), and (iii) without cardioverter-defibrillator with LVEF > 35% (non-ICD patients >35%). Primary outcome was sudden cardiac death or, in defibrillator carriers, appropriate defibrillator therapy. Using a competing risk framework and systematic internal-external cross-validation, a model using LVEF only, a multivariable flexible parametric survival model, and a multivariable random forest survival model were developed and externally validated. Predictive performance was assessed by random effect meta-analysis. RESULTS: There were 1326 primary outcomes in 7543 ICD patients, 1193 in 25 058 non-ICD patients ≤35%, and 1567 in 107 603 non-ICD patients >35% during mean follow-up of 30.0, 46.5, and 57.6 months, respectively. In these three subgroups, LVEF poorly predicted sudden cardiac death (c-statistics between 0.50 and 0.56). Considering additional parameters did not improve calibration and discrimination, and model generalizability was poor. CONCLUSIONS: More accurate risk stratification for sudden cardiac death and identification of low-risk individuals with severely reduced LVEF or of high-risk individuals with preserved LVEF was not feasible, neither using LVEF nor using other predictors.

• Keywords
• Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, Myocardial infarction, Primary prevention, Sudden cardiac death,
• MeSH
• Defibrillators, Implantable * MeSH
• Electrocardiography MeSH
• Risk Assessment methods   MeSH
• Myocardial Infarction * mortality   complications   MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Death, Sudden, Cardiac * prevention & control   epidemiology   etiology   MeSH
• Stroke Volume * physiology   MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Meta-Analysis 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.

• Keywords
• arrhythmias, cardiac, defibrillators, implantable, mental health, quality of life,
• MeSH
• Time Factors MeSH
• Defibrillators, Implantable * MeSH
• Mental Health * MeSH
• Electric Countershock * instrumentation   adverse effects   MeSH
• Functional Status MeSH
• Quality of Life * MeSH
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Death, Sudden, Cardiac prevention & control   MeSH
• Prospective Studies MeSH
• Prosthesis Design MeSH
• Surveys and Questionnaires MeSH
• Risk Factors MeSH
• Aged MeSH
• Arrhythmias, Cardiac therapy   diagnosis   physiopathology   MeSH
• Treatment Outcome MeSH
• Health Status MeSH
• Check Tag
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Male MeSH
• Aged MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Multicenter Study MeSH
• Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
• Comparative Study MeSH