Patrick H Pun1,2, Craig S Parzynski3, Daniel J Friedman4, Gillian Sanders5, Jeptha P Curtis3,4, Sana M Al-Khatib5,6. 1. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina patrick.pun@duke.edu. 2. Division of Nephrology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut. 4. Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 5. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 6. Division of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients on dialysis are at high risk of complications related to implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation; use of subcutaneous ICDs may be preferred over transvenous devices due to lower risk of bloodstream infection and interference with vascular access sites. We evaluated trends in use and in-hospital outcomes of subcutaneous compared with transvenous ICDs among patients on dialysis in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Retrospective analysis of ICD implants from 2012 to 2018 among patients on dialysis reported to the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry, a nationally representative US ICD Registry. We examined overall trends in subcutaneous ICD adoption as a proportion of all eligible ICD implants among patients on dialysis and then compared in-hospital outcomes between eligible subcutaneous ICD and transvenous ICD recipients using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Of the 23,136 total ICD implants in patients on dialysis during the study period, 3195 (14%) were subcutaneous ICDs. Among eligible first-time ICD recipients on dialysis, the proportion of subcutaneous ICDs used increased yearly from 10% in 2012 to 69% in 2018. In propensity score-weighted analysis of 3327 patients, compared with transvenous ICDs, patients on dialysis receiving subcutaneous ICDs had a higher rate of in-hospital cardiac arrest (2% versus 0.4%, P=0.002), but there was no significant difference in total in-hospital complications (2% versus 1%, P=0.08), all-cause death, or length of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of subcutaneous ICDs among US patients on dialysis has been steadily increasing. The overall risk of short-term complications is low and comparable with transvenous ICDs, but higher risks of in-hospital cardiac arrest merits closer monitoring and further investigation. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2020_09_23_CJN07920520.mp3.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Patients on dialysis are at high risk of complications related to implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation; use of subcutaneous ICDs may be preferred over transvenous devices due to lower risk of bloodstream infection and interference with vascular access sites. We evaluated trends in use and in-hospital outcomes of subcutaneous compared with transvenous ICDs among patients on dialysis in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Retrospective analysis of ICD implants from 2012 to 2018 among patients on dialysis reported to the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry, a nationally representative US ICD Registry. We examined overall trends in subcutaneous ICD adoption as a proportion of all eligible ICD implants among patients on dialysis and then compared in-hospital outcomes between eligible subcutaneous ICD and transvenous ICD recipients using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Of the 23,136 total ICD implants in patients on dialysis during the study period, 3195 (14%) were subcutaneous ICDs. Among eligible first-time ICD recipients on dialysis, the proportion of subcutaneous ICDs used increased yearly from 10% in 2012 to 69% in 2018. In propensity score-weighted analysis of 3327 patients, compared with transvenous ICDs, patients on dialysis receiving subcutaneous ICDs had a higher rate of in-hospital cardiac arrest (2% versus 0.4%, P=0.002), but there was no significant difference in total in-hospital complications (2% versus 1%, P=0.08), all-cause death, or length of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of subcutaneous ICDs among US patients on dialysis has been steadily increasing. The overall risk of short-term complications is low and comparable with transvenous ICDs, but higher risks of in-hospital cardiac arrest merits closer monitoring and further investigation. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2020_09_23_CJN07920520.mp3.
Authors: Stephen C Hammill; Mark S Kremers; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Paul A Heidenreich; Christine M Lang; Jeptha P Curtis; Yongfei Wang; Charles I Berul; Alan H Kadish; Sana M Al-Khatib; Ileana L Pina; Mary Norine Walsh; Michael J Mirro; Bruce D Lindsay; Matthew R Reynolds; Kathryn Pontzer; Laura Blum; Frederick Masoudi; John Rumsfeld; Ralph G Brindis Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2010-07-18 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: J Wouter Jukema; Rohit J Timal; Joris I Rotmans; Liselotte C R Hensen; Maurits S Buiten; Mihaly K de Bie; Hein Putter; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Lieselot van Erven; M Jacqueline Krol-van Straaten; Nienke Hommes; Bas Gabreëls; Wim van Dorp; Bastiaan van Dam; Charles A Herzog; Martin J Schalij; Ton J Rabelink Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Mark S Kremers; Stephen C Hammill; Charles I Berul; Christina Koutras; Jeptha S Curtis; Yongfei Wang; Jim Beachy; Laura Blum Meisnere; Del M Conyers; Matthew R Reynolds; Paul A Heidenreich; Sana M Al-Khatib; Ileana L Pina; Kathleen Blake; Mary Norine Walsh; Bruce L Wilkoff; Alaa Shalaby; Frederick A Masoudi; John Rumsfeld Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2013-02-09 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Daniel J Friedman; Craig S Parzynski; E Kevin Heist; Andrea M Russo; Joseph G Akar; James V Freeman; Jeptha P Curtis; Sana M Al-Khatib Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Rajiv K Dhamija; Henry Tan; Edward Philbin; Roy O Mathew; Mandeep S Sidhu; Jeffrey Wang; Basil Saour; Syed S Haqqie; Gerald Beathard; Alexander S Yevzlin; Loay Salman; William E Boden; Gary Siskin; Arif Asif Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Sharanya Ramesh; Ann Zalucky; Brenda R Hemmelgarn; Derek J Roberts; Sofia B Ahmed; Stephen B Wilton; Min Jun Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 2.388