Premium
Performance and outcome of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator after transvenous lead extraction
Author(s) -
Chung DaUn,
Tauber Johannes,
Kaiser Lukas,
Schlichting Andrea,
Pecha Simon,
Sinning Christoph,
Rexha Enida,
Reichenspurner Hermann,
Willems Stephan,
Gosau Nils,
Hakmi Samer
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
pacing and clinical electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.686
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1540-8159
pISSN - 0147-8389
DOI - 10.1111/pace.14157
Subject(s) - medicine , implantable cardioverter defibrillator , complication , retrospective cohort study , sudden cardiac death , lead (geology) , concomitant , surgery , cardiology , geomorphology , geology
Aims The subcutaneous cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD) may be a valuable option in patients after successful transvenous lead extraction (TLE) without indication for pacemaker therapy and persistent risk of sudden cardiac death. The aim of this study was to evaluate device performance, postoperative outcome, and safety in patients who received a S‐ICD after TLE compared to patients who underwent de‐novo S‐ICD implantation. Methods A retrospective analysis of all patients included into our institution's S‐ICD database between September 2010 and May 2019 was conducted.The patients were divided in two groups, depending on whether they had received their S‐ICD after TLE (n = 31) or de‐novo (n = 113). Results The TLE group was significantly older with a mean age of 54.3 ± 15.7 versus 46.7 ± 14.4 years; p = .007. Leading S‐ICD indication in the TLE group was previous infection (50%), whereas in the de‐novo group the S‐ICD was primarily chosen due to young patient age (74.6%). Median duration of follow‐up was 527.0 versus 472.5 days, respectively; p = .576. Most common complication during follow‐up was inappropriate ICD therapy (12.9% vs. 13.3%); p = 1.000. Pocket erosion/infection occurred in 3.2% versus 3.5% with no reported cases of systemic (re‐)infection in either group; p = 1.000. All‐cause mortality was low (6.2% vs. 2.7%) and entirely unrelated to S‐ICD implantation or the device itself; p = .293. Conclusion The S‐ICD is a safe and effective alternative for patients after TLE with very similar results regarding device performance and postoperative outcome, when compared to patients who underwent de‐novo S‐ICD implantation.