ClinicalDevicesAge-related differences and associated mid-term outcomes of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: A propensity-matched analysis from a multicenter European registry
Introduction
In the last decade, the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has become a cornerstone in sudden cardiac death (SCD) prevention as an established alternative to the transvenous (TV) ICD among patients not needing pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy.1 SCD prevention with ICD therapy has also been demonstrated to be safe and effective in young patients with ventricular arrhythmias, arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathies, and congenital heart diseases.2 Young patients often represent the most suitable candidates for an entirely S-ICD system because they have to face a lifetime of device therapy and they rarely have a pre-existing or concurrent pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy indication. Indeed, TV-ICD bears the risk of significant lead-related complications as well as potential venous access issues, which pose significant concerns regarding their mid-term use in young patients. However, the S-ICD offers lower rates and safer management of lead- and major procedure–related complications, as well as easier management of these events, especially with regard to lead extraction.3, 4, 5
To date, a few limited case series and experiences with S-ICD in teenagers and young adults have shown that the S-ICD system is safe and feasible in this population, with a rate of inappropriate shocks (IAS) comparable to that of TV-ICD6, 7; however, a focused analysis on a large scale currently is lacking in this setting. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the mid-term outcomes in the largest independent European S-ICD registry based on baseline patient profiles and ages at implantation.
Section snippets
Registry population
The ELISIR project (Experience from the Long-term Italian S-RCD registry) is a European, multicenter, open-label, independent, physician-initiated observational registry, whose characteristics and preliminary composition have been previously described.8, 9 At the time of this manuscript drafting, a total of 21 public and private health care institutions from 4 different countries in Europe were involved in the registry. All consecutive patients meeting current guideline indications for ICD
Patient population
Teenagers and young adults represented 11.0% of the patients (51 teenagers; 113 young adults) in the registry. After extraction and propensity matching, 2 cohorts of 161 patients each were retrieved and used for the study. Considering not-matched variables, teenagers and young adults at the time of S-ICD implantations were more active (body mass index 23.3 ± 4.2 vs 26.0 ± 4.2; P <.001; sport practice rate 21.3% vs 12.4%; P = .026) and had lower rates of cardiovascular risk factors compared to
Discussion
The aim of this study was to summarize the mid-term outcomes among the recipients of an S-ICD in a large, multicenter, European registry based on age-related differences in patient baseline clinical profiles. The main points of this study are as follows. First, in a large, multicenter, real-world registry encompassing a broad population, teenagers (<20 years old) and young adults (20–30 years old) represented 11.0% of S-ICD recipients. Teenagers and young adults received an S-ICD more
Conclusion
In a large multicenter European registry of patients with S-ICD, 11.0% of all recipients were teenagers or young adults. Use of an S-ICD in teenagers/young adults was safe and effective, and the rates of complications and IAS between teenagers/young adults and adults were not significantly different. The only predictor of increased IAS was a diagnosis of ARVC.
References (19)
- et al.
Results of a multicenter retrospective implantable cardioverter-defibrillator registry of pediatric and congenital heart disease patients
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2008) - et al.
Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable defibrillator therapy: a meta-analysis of case-control studies
JACC Clin Electrophysiol
(2017) - et al.
Long-term complications in patients implanted with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: real-world data from the extended ELISIR experience
Heart Rhythm
(2021) - et al.
Long-term experience with the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in teenagers and young adults
JACC Clin Electrophysiol
(2017) - et al.
Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and defibrillation testing: a propensity-matched pilot study
Heart Rhythm
(2021) - et al.
Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy: results from an Italian multicenter registry
Int J Cardiol
(2019) - et al.
Appropriate and inappropriate shocks in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: an international multicenter study
Heart Rhythm
(2020) - et al.
2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on optimal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and testing
Europace
(2016) - et al.
Neglected lead tip erosion: an unusual case of S-ICD inappropriate shock
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
(2020)
Cited by (18)
Impact of Age on Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in a Large Patient Cohort: Mid-Term Follow-Up
2023, JACC: Clinical ElectrophysiologyDevelopment of the Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: JACC Historical Breakthroughs in Perspective
2023, Journal of the American College of CardiologyThe subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator should be reserved for niche indications
2022, Heart Rhythm O2Citation Excerpt :Although failing to reach statistical significance, the trend of higher IAS with the S-ICD is supported by a multitude of real-world registries. An Italian S-ICD registry reported an IAS rate of 9.4% in 2 years, similar to rates reported worldwide in the EFFORTLESS (Evaluation of Factors Impacting Clinical Outcome and Cost Effectiveness Of the S-ICD) trial (11.7% in 3 years).17,18 Given that IAS are psychologically harmful and lead to increased health care utilization, the S-ICD cannot be considered as a first option until any issues are addressed.19
Funding Sources: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors
Disclosures: Dr Santini is a consultant/speaker for Boston Scientific. Dr Tondo is a member of Boston Scientific advisory board. Dr Steffel has received consultant and/or speaker fees Boston Scientific; and has received grant support through his institution from Boston Scientific. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.
- 1
Dr Simone Gulletta and Dr Alessio Gasperetti shared first co-authorship.
- 2
Dr Giovanni B. Forleo and Dr Roland Tilz shared last co-authorship. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0473876