BACKGROUND: Although the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD®) is an attractive alternative in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), data on S-ICD outcomes in dialysis patients are lacking. METHODS: Patients with cardiomyopathy undergoing S-ICD implantation in our center were stratified by need for chronic dialysis at the time of implant. The primary endpoint was incidence of death, heart failure hospitalization or appropriate S-ICD shocks, and secondary endpoints were incidence of inappropriate shocks or implant related complications requiring surgical re-intervention. Mean follow-up was longer in the nondialysis cohort (514 ± 495 vs. 227 ± 233 days, P = 0.006), so all endpoints were analyzed using time-dependent comparisons and reported as annual event rates. RESULTS: Out of 79 S-ICD implants included in this analysis, 27 patients were on dialysis. Dialysis patients were older and more likely to be diabetic. Mean ejection fraction across the entire cohort was 26.9% without significant difference between dialysis and nondialysis groups. Although not significant, the incidence of the primary endpoint was higher in the dialysis cohort (23.8%/year vs. 10.9%/year, P = 0.317), driven primarily by a higher rate of appropriate shocks. The rate of inappropriate shocks was similar between groups (dialysis 6.0%/year vs. nondialysis 6.8%/year, P = 0.509). No patients in the dialysis cohort had complications requiring surgical re-intervention versus 6 patients in the nondialysis cohort (P = 0.086). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that S-ICD implantation in dialysis patients is not associated with an excess risk of implant related complications or inappropriate shocks.
BACKGROUND: Although the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD®) is an attractive alternative in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), data on S-ICD outcomes in dialysis patients are lacking. METHODS:Patients with cardiomyopathy undergoing S-ICD implantation in our center were stratified by need for chronic dialysis at the time of implant. The primary endpoint was incidence of death, heart failure hospitalization or appropriate S-ICD shocks, and secondary endpoints were incidence of inappropriate shocks or implant related complications requiring surgical re-intervention. Mean follow-up was longer in the nondialysis cohort (514 ± 495 vs. 227 ± 233 days, P = 0.006), so all endpoints were analyzed using time-dependent comparisons and reported as annual event rates. RESULTS: Out of 79 S-ICD implants included in this analysis, 27 patients were on dialysis. Dialysis patients were older and more likely to be diabetic. Mean ejection fraction across the entire cohort was 26.9% without significant difference between dialysis and nondialysis groups. Although not significant, the incidence of the primary endpoint was higher in the dialysis cohort (23.8%/year vs. 10.9%/year, P = 0.317), driven primarily by a higher rate of appropriate shocks. The rate of inappropriate shocks was similar between groups (dialysis 6.0%/year vs. nondialysis 6.8%/year, P = 0.509). No patients in the dialysis cohort had complications requiring surgical re-intervention versus 6 patients in the nondialysis cohort (P = 0.086). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that S-ICD implantation in dialysis patients is not associated with an excess risk of implant related complications or inappropriate shocks.
Authors: Mintu P Turakhia; Peter J Blankestijn; Juan-Jesus Carrero; Catherine M Clase; Rajat Deo; Charles A Herzog; Scott E Kasner; Rod S Passman; Roberto Pecoits-Filho; Holger Reinecke; Gautam R Shroff; Wojciech Zareba; Michael Cheung; David C Wheeler; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Christoph Wanner Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Navdeep K Bhatti; Keyvan Karimi Galougahi; Yehuda Paz; Tamim Nazif; Jeffrey W Moses; Martin B Leon; Gregg W Stone; Ajay J Kirtane; Dimitri Karmpaliotis; Sabahat Bokhari; Mark A Hardy; Geoffrey Dube; Sumit Mohan; Lloyd E Ratner; David J Cohen; Ziad A Ali Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 5.501