Serge Boveda1, Radoslaw Lenarczyk2, Kristina Haugaa3, Stefano Fumagalli4, Antonio Hernandez Madrid5, Pascal Defaye6, Paul Broadhurst7, Nikolaos Dagres8. 1. Department of Cardiology, Cardiac Arrhythmias Management Department, Clinique Pasteur, 45 Avenue de Lombez, 31076 Toulouse, France sboveda@clinique-pasteur.com. 2. Department of Cardiology, Congenital Heart Disease and Electrotherapy, Silesian Medical University, Silesian Centre for Heart Diseases, Zabrze, Poland. 3. Department of Cardiology and Institute for Surgical Research, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 4. Intensive Care Unit, Geriatric Cardiology and Medicine Division, Experimental and Clinical Medicine Department, University of Florence and AOU Careggi, Florence, Italy. 5. Cardiology Department, Ramón y Cajal Hospital, Alcala University, 28034 Madrid, Spain. 6. Arrhythmia Department, University Hospital Grenoble-Alps, 38043 Grenoble, France. 7. Consultant Cardiologist, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZN, UK. 8. Department of Electrophysiology, University of Leipzig-Heart Center, Leipzig, Germany.
Abstract
AIMS: The purpose of this European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) survey is to provide an overview of the current use of subcutaneous cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) across a broad range of European centres. METHODS AND RESULTS: A questionnaire was sent via the internet to centres participating in the EHRA electrophysiology research network. Questions included standards of care and policies used for patient management, indications, and techniques of implantation of the S-ICDs. In total, 52 centres replied to the questionnaire. More than one-fourth of the responding centres does not implant the S-ICD (n = 14, 27%). The majority reported to have implanted <10 (50%) or 10-29 (23%) S-ICDs during the last 12 months. Lack of reimbursement (25%), non-availability (19%), and cost of the device (25%) seem to limit the use of the S-ICD. The most commonly reported indications for S-ICD implantation are a difficult vascular access (82%), a history of previous complicated transvenous ICD (8O%), young age (69%), or an anticipated higher risk of infection (63%). Inappropriate therapies were the most frequently reported major problems (38%), but the majority of respondents (51%) never encountered any issue after an S-ICD implantation. Most of the respondents (83%) anticipate significant increase of S-ICD use within the next 2 years. CONCLUSION: This survey provides a contemporary insight into S-ICD implantation and management in the European electrophysiology centres, showing different approaches, depending on local policies. Cost issues or lack of reimbursement strongly influence the dissemination of the device. However, most respondents retain that S-ICD use will significantly increase in a very short time. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: The purpose of this European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) survey is to provide an overview of the current use of subcutaneous cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) across a broad range of European centres. METHODS AND RESULTS: A questionnaire was sent via the internet to centres participating in the EHRA electrophysiology research network. Questions included standards of care and policies used for patient management, indications, and techniques of implantation of the S-ICDs. In total, 52 centres replied to the questionnaire. More than one-fourth of the responding centres does not implant the S-ICD (n = 14, 27%). The majority reported to have implanted <10 (50%) or 10-29 (23%) S-ICDs during the last 12 months. Lack of reimbursement (25%), non-availability (19%), and cost of the device (25%) seem to limit the use of the S-ICD. The most commonly reported indications for S-ICD implantation are a difficult vascular access (82%), a history of previous complicated transvenous ICD (8O%), young age (69%), or an anticipated higher risk of infection (63%). Inappropriate therapies were the most frequently reported major problems (38%), but the majority of respondents (51%) never encountered any issue after an S-ICD implantation. Most of the respondents (83%) anticipate significant increase of S-ICD use within the next 2 years. CONCLUSION: This survey provides a contemporary insight into S-ICD implantation and management in the European electrophysiology centres, showing different approaches, depending on local policies. Cost issues or lack of reimbursement strongly influence the dissemination of the device. However, most respondents retain that S-ICD use will significantly increase in a very short time. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Marcin Grabowski; Monika Gawałko; Marcin Michalak; Andrzej Cacko; Michał Kowara; Agnieszka Kołodzińska; Łukasz Januszkiewicz; Paweł Balsam; Laura Vitali Serdoz; Joachim Winter; Grzegorz Opolski Journal: Cardiol J Date: 2018-04-03 Impact factor: 2.737
Authors: Giovanni Luca Botto; Giovanni B Forleo; Alessandro Capucci; Francesco Solimene; Antonello Vado; Giovanni Bertero; Pietro Palmisano; Ennio Pisanò; Antonio Rapacciuolo; Tommaso Infusino; Alessandro Vicentini; Miguel Viscusi; Paola Ferrari; Antonello Talarico; Giovanni Russo; Giuseppe Boriani; Luigi Padeletti; Mariolina Lovecchio; Sergio Valsecchi; Antonio D'Onofrio Journal: Europace Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Krzysztof Kaczmarek; Maciej Kempa; Marcin Grabowski; Mateusz Tajstra; Adam Sokal; Iwona Cygankiewicz; Radosław Zwoliński; Marcin Michalak; Michal Kowara; Szymon Budrejko; Anna Kurek; Jerzy K Wranicz; Grzegorz Raczak; Grzegorz Opolski; Mariusz Gąsior; Oskar Kowalski; Paweł Ptaszyński Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 3.318