BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) may be an alternative to transvenous ICD (TV-ICD). AIM: We sought to evaluate factors determining the choice of S-ICD vs. TV-ICD in Polish patients in comparison to other European countries. METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent TV-ICD or S-ICD implantation in centres participating in the European Heart Rhythm Association prospective snapshot survey were included. RESULTS: During an eight-week study period, 429 patients were recruited, including 136 (31.7%) ICD patients from Poland (eight with S-ICD). In comparison to other European centres, the proportion of S-ICD implantations in Poland was lower (7% vs. 26%, p < 0.001), whereas the ratio of cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillator implantations was higher (43% vs. 26%; p < 0.001). Subjects receiving S-ICD in Poland were more often over 75 years old (25% vs. 0%, p < 0.001), in New York Heart Association class II (87.5% vs. 29.4%, p = 0.001), with chronic kidney disease (37.5% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.003), and with lower left ventricular ejection fraction (32% [14%-50%] vs. 50% [25%-60%], p = 0.04), compared to other European countries. Additionally, in comparison to subjects from other European centres, Polish patients were significantly more often implanted with S-ICD due to prior infection (37.5% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.001) and a lack of venous access (25% vs. 0%, p < 0.001), whereas the largest subset of patients in other European countries were implanted with S-ICD because of young age (50% vs. 25%, p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: The main reasons leading to S-ICD implantations in Polish patients differ from the indications adopted in other European countries. In Poland, patients referred for TV-ICD or S-ICD implantation had more advanced heart failure and more comorbidities in comparison to subjects from other European countries. S-ICD is still underused in Polish patients.
BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) may be an alternative to transvenous ICD (TV-ICD). AIM: We sought to evaluate factors determining the choice of S-ICD vs. TV-ICD in Polish patients in comparison to other European countries. METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent TV-ICD or S-ICD implantation in centres participating in the European Heart Rhythm Association prospective snapshot survey were included. RESULTS: During an eight-week study period, 429 patients were recruited, including 136 (31.7%) ICD patients from Poland (eight with S-ICD). In comparison to other European centres, the proportion of S-ICD implantations in Poland was lower (7% vs. 26%, p < 0.001), whereas the ratio of cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillator implantations was higher (43% vs. 26%; p < 0.001). Subjects receiving S-ICD in Poland were more often over 75 years old (25% vs. 0%, p < 0.001), in New York Heart Association class II (87.5% vs. 29.4%, p = 0.001), with chronic kidney disease (37.5% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.003), and with lower left ventricular ejection fraction (32% [14%-50%] vs. 50% [25%-60%], p = 0.04), compared to other European countries. Additionally, in comparison to subjects from other European centres, Polish patients were significantly more often implanted with S-ICD due to prior infection (37.5% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.001) and a lack of venous access (25% vs. 0%, p < 0.001), whereas the largest subset of patients in other European countries were implanted with S-ICD because of young age (50% vs. 25%, p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: The main reasons leading to S-ICD implantations in Polish patients differ from the indications adopted in other European countries. In Poland, patients referred for TV-ICD or S-ICD implantation had more advanced heart failure and more comorbidities in comparison to subjects from other European countries. S-ICD is still underused in Polish patients.
Authors: Maciej Kempa; Andrzej Przybylski; Szymon Budrejko; Tomasz Fabiszak; Michał Lewandowski; Krzysztof Kaczmarek; Mateusz Tajstra; Marcin Grabowski; Przemysław Mitkowski; Stanisław Tubek; Ewa Jędrzejczyk-Patej; Radosław Lenarczyk; Dariusz Jagielski; Janusz Romanek; Anna Rydlewska; Zbigniew Orski; Joanna Zakrzewska-Koperska; Artur Filipecki; Marcin Janowski; Tatjana Potpara; Serge Boveda Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 3.390
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