Comparison of transvenous vs subcutaneous defibrillator therapy in patients with cardiac arrhythmia syndromes and genetic cardiomyopathies

Int J Cardiol. 2021 Jan 15:323:100-105. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.08.089. Epub 2020 Aug 29.

Abstract

Background: Inherited arrhythmia syndromes and genetic cardiomyopathies attribute in a significant proportion to sudden cardiac death. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are the cornerstone in the prevention of sudden death in high-risk patients. However, ICD therapy is also associated with high rates of inappropriate shocks and/or device-related complications especially in young patients.

Objective: To determine the outcome of high-risk patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes and genetic cardiomyopathies comparing two defibrillator technologies.

Method: Between 2010 and 2018, 183 consecutive patients from two large German tertiary care centers were enrolled in the study. The majority of patients (83%) had either cardiac channelopathies or idiopathic ventricular fibrillation without cardiac structural abnormalities, while the remaining 17% had a genetic cardiomyopathy (HCM/ARVC). Eighty-six patients (47%) received a transvenous ICD (TV-ICD), while a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) was implanted in another 97 patients (53%).

Results: During a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, 30 patients had an appropriate ICD therapy (annual rate 3.8%). Fifteen patients experienced an inappropriate shock (annual rate 1.9%). Lead failure occurred in 17 (9%) patients and was less frequent in the S-ICD group (OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.38-0.62). Adverse defibrillator events, defined as a composite of inappropriate shocks and lead failure requiring surgical revision were significantly lower in the S-ICD group as compared to the TV-ICD group (OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.41-0.72). There was a non-significant trend towards lower appropriate shocks in the S-ICD group, that in combination with all-cause shocks yielded in a significantly higher freedom of any shock in the S-ICD group (RR 39%, p = 0.003). No deaths occurred during follow-up.

Conclusion: The present data favor the use of the subcutaneous ICD for patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes and genetic cardiomyopathies who do not need anti-bradycardia pacing.

Keywords: Appropriate shock; Inappropriate shock; Inherited arrhythmia syndromes; Lead failure; Lead fracture; Subcutaneous defibrillator; Sudden cardiac death; Transvenous defibrillator; Ventricular fibrillation; Ventricular tachycardia.

MeSH terms

  • Arrhythmias, Cardiac / diagnosis
  • Arrhythmias, Cardiac / genetics
  • Arrhythmias, Cardiac / therapy
  • Cardiomyopathies* / genetics
  • Cardiomyopathies* / therapy
  • Death, Sudden, Cardiac / epidemiology
  • Death, Sudden, Cardiac / prevention & control
  • Defibrillators, Implantable*
  • Humans
  • Syndrome
  • Treatment Outcome