Lucas V Boersma1, Craig S Barr2, Martin C Burke3, Angel R Leon4, Dominic A Theuns5, John M Herre6, Raul Weiss7, Mark S Kremers8, Petr Neuzil9, Michael P Husby10, Nathan Carter10, Timothy M Stivland10, Michael R Gold11. 1. St. Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwegein/Associated Principal Investigator Cardiology at AMC Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: l.boersma@antoniusziekenhuis.nl. 2. Russell Hall Hospital, Dudley, United Kingdom. 3. Heart Rhythm Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia. 5. Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Sentara Cardiovascular Research Institute, Norfolk, Virginia. 7. Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 8. Novant Health Presbyterian Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina. 9. Homolka Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. 10. Boston Scientific Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota. 11. Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable defibrillator (S-ICD) provides an alternative to the transvenous ICD for the prevention of sudden cardiac death, but has not been well studied in the most commonly treated transvenous ICD patient population, namely, primary prevention (PP) patients with left ventricular dysfunction. OBJECTIVE: The analyses in the present study were designed to compare clinical outcomes for PP patients with and without a reduced ejection fraction (EF) and secondary prevention (SP) patients implanted with the S-ICD. METHODS: All patients 18 years and older from the S-ICD IDE study and the EFFORTLESS Registry with available data as of November 18, 2013, were included (n = 856; mean follow-up duration 644 days). Outcomes were evaluated in 2 analyses: (1) comparing all PP patients (n = 603, 70.4%) with all SP patients (n = 253, 29.6%) and (2) comparing all PP patients with an EF ≤35% (n = 379) with those with an EF >35% (n = 149, 17.4%). RESULTS: No differences were observed in mortality, complications, inappropriate therapy, or ability to convert ventricular tachyarrhythmias between SP and PP patients. However, SP patients had a higher incidence of appropriate therapy than did PP patients (11.9% vs 5.0%; P = .0004). In the PP subanalysis, the cohort with an EF ≤35% had significantly older patients with more comorbidities and higher mortality (3.0% annually vs 0.0%). Despite these differences, device-related complications, conversion efficacy, and incidence of inappropriate shock therapies were not significantly different between PP subgroups. CONCLUSION: The S-ICD performs well in protecting patients with either PP or SP implant indications from sudden cardiac death. Within PP patients, device performance was independent of EF. Copyright Â
BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable defibrillator (S-ICD) provides an alternative to the transvenous ICD for the prevention of sudden cardiac death, but has not been well studied in the most commonly treated transvenous ICD patient population, namely, primary prevention (PP) patients with left ventricular dysfunction. OBJECTIVE: The analyses in the present study were designed to compare clinical outcomes for PP patients with and without a reduced ejection fraction (EF) and secondary prevention (SP) patients implanted with the S-ICD. METHODS: All patients 18 years and older from the S-ICD IDE study and the EFFORTLESS Registry with available data as of November 18, 2013, were included (n = 856; mean follow-up duration 644 days). Outcomes were evaluated in 2 analyses: (1) comparing all PP patients (n = 603, 70.4%) with all SP patients (n = 253, 29.6%) and (2) comparing all PP patients with an EF ≤35% (n = 379) with those with an EF >35% (n = 149, 17.4%). RESULTS: No differences were observed in mortality, complications, inappropriate therapy, or ability to convert ventricular tachyarrhythmias between SP and PP patients. However, SP patients had a higher incidence of appropriate therapy than did PP patients (11.9% vs 5.0%; P = .0004). In the PP subanalysis, the cohort with an EF ≤35% had significantly older patients with more comorbidities and higher mortality (3.0% annually vs 0.0%). Despite these differences, device-related complications, conversion efficacy, and incidence of inappropriate shock therapies were not significantly different between PP subgroups. CONCLUSION: The S-ICD performs well in protecting patients with either PP or SP implant indications from sudden cardiac death. Within PP patients, device performance was independent of EF. Copyright Â
Authors: Kevin Willy; Markus Bettin; Florian Reinke; Nils Bögeholz; Christian Ellermann; Benjamin Rath; Patrick Leitz; Julia Köbe; Lars Eckardt; Gerrit Frommeyer Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2019-03-21 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Pier D Lambiase; Dominic A Theuns; Francis Murgatroyd; Craig Barr; Lars Eckardt; Petr Neuzil; Marcoen Scholten; Margaret Hood; Jȕrgen Kuschyk; Amy J Brisben; Nathan Carter; Timothy M Stivland; Reinoud Knops; Lucas V A Boersma Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 35.855
Authors: Jayanthi N Koneru; Paul W Jones; Eric F Hammill; Nicholas Wold; Kenneth A Ellenbogen Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Christoph Schukro; David Santer; Günther Prenner; Markus Stühlinger; Martin Martinek; Alexander Teubl; Deddo Moertl; Stefan Schwarz; Michael Nürnberg; Lukas Fiedler; Robert Hatala; Cesar Khazen Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2020-08-14 Impact factor: 2.882