Cargando…

Intermuscular technique for implantation of the subcutaneous implantable defibrillator: a propensity-matched case–control study

AIMS: A previous randomized study demonstrated that the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) was noninferior to transvenous ICD with respect to device-related complications and inappropriate shocks. However, that was performed prior to the widespread adoption of pulse generato...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Botto, Giovanni Luca, Ziacchi, Matteo, Nigro, Gerardo, D’Onofrio, Antonio, Dello Russo, Antonio, Francia, Pietro, Viani, Stefano, Pisanò, Ennio, Bisignani, Giovanni, Caravati, Fabrizio, Migliore, Federico, De Filippo, Paolo, Ottaviano, Luca, Rordorf, Roberto, Manzo, Michele, Canevese, Fabio Lorenzo, Lovecchio, Mariolina, Valsecchi, Sergio, Checchi, Luca
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10105850/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36794691
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euad028
Descripción
Sumario:AIMS: A previous randomized study demonstrated that the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) was noninferior to transvenous ICD with respect to device-related complications and inappropriate shocks. However, that was performed prior to the widespread adoption of pulse generator implantation in the intermuscular (IM) space instead of the traditional subcutaneous (SC) pocket. The aim of this analysis was to compare survival from device-related complications and inappropriate shocks between patients who underwent S-ICD implantation with the generator positioned in an IM position in comparison with an SC pocket. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed 1577 consecutive patients who had undergone S-ICD implantation from 2013 to 2021 and were followed up until December 2021. Subcutaneous patients (n = 290) were propensity matched with patients of the IM group (n = 290), and their outcomes were compared. : During a median follow-up of 28 months, device-related complications were reported in 28 (4.8%) patients and inappropriate shocks were reported in 37 (6.4%) patients. The risk of complication was lower in the matched IM group than in the SC group [hazard ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17–0.99, P = 0.041], as well as the composite of complications and inappropriate shocks (hazard ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.30–0.86, P = 0.013). The risk of appropriate shocks was similar between groups (hazard ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.50–1.61, P = 0.721). There was no significant interaction between generator positioning and variables such as gender, age, body mass index, and ejection fraction. CONCLUSION: Our data showed the superiority of the IM S-ICD generator positioning in reducing device-related complications and inappropriate shocks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT02275637.