Perioperative Safety and Early Patient and Device Outcomes Among Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantations : A Randomized, Multicenter Trial
- PMID: 36343346
- DOI: 10.7326/M22-1566
Perioperative Safety and Early Patient and Device Outcomes Among Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantations : A Randomized, Multicenter Trial
Abstract
Background: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) improve survival in patients at risk for cardiac arrest, but are associated with intravascular lead-related complications. The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), with no intravascular components, was developed to minimize lead-related complications.
Objective: To assess key ICD performance measures related to delivery of ICD therapy, including inappropriate ICD shocks (delivered in absence of life-threatening arrhythmia) and failed ICD shocks (which did not terminate ventricular arrhythmia).
Design: Randomized, multicenter trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02881255).
Setting: The ATLAS trial.
Patients: 544 eligible patients (141 female) with a primary or secondary prevention indication for an ICD who were younger than age 60 years, had a cardiogenetic phenotype, or had prespecified risk factors for lead complications were electrocardiographically screened and 503 randomly assigned to S-ICD (251 patients) or transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) (252 patients). Mean follow-up was 2.5 years (SD, 1.1). Mean age was 49.0 years (SD, 11.5).
Measurements: The primary outcome was perioperative major lead-related complications.
Results: There was a statistically significant reduction in perioperative, lead-related complications, which occurred in 1 patient (0.4%) with an S-ICD and in 12 patients (4.8%) with TV-ICD (-4.4%; 95% CI, -6.9 to -1.9; P = 0.001). There was a trend for more inappropriate shocks with the S-ICD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.37; 95% CI, 0.98 to 5.77), but no increase in failed appropriate ICD shocks (HR, 0.61 (0.15 to 2.57). Patients in the S-ICD group had more ICD site pain, measured on a 10-point numeric rating scale, on the day of implant (4.2 ± 2.8 vs. 2.9 ± 2.2; P < 0.001) and 1 month later (1.3 ± 1.8 vs. 0.9 ± 1.5; P = 0.035).
Limitation: At present, the ATLAS trial is underpowered to detect differences in clinical shock outcomes; however, extended follow-up is ongoing.
Conclusion: The S-ICD reduces perioperative, lead-related complications without significantly compromising the effectiveness of ICD shocks, but with more early postoperative pain and a trend for more inappropriate shocks.
Primary funding source: Boston Scientific.
Similar articles
-
Efficacy and Safety of Appropriate Shocks and Antitachycardia Pacing in Transvenous and Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillators: Analysis of All Appropriate Therapy in the PRAETORIAN Trial.Circulation. 2022 Feb;145(5):321-329. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.057816. Epub 2021 Nov 14. Circulation. 2022. PMID: 34779221 Clinical Trial.
-
Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Defibrillator Therapy.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Nov 8;68(19):2047-2055. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.08.044. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016. PMID: 27810043 Clinical Trial.
-
Quality of Life in Subcutaneous or Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Patients: A Secondary Analysis of the PRAETORIAN Trial.Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2024 Nov;17(11):e010822. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.124.010822. Epub 2024 Nov 19. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2024. PMID: 39561235 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable defibrillator: An updated meta-analysis.Heart Rhythm. 2021 Mar;18(3):382-391. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.11.013. Epub 2020 Nov 16. Heart Rhythm. 2021. PMID: 33212250
-
Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Defibrillator Therapy: A Meta-Analysis of Case-Control Studies.JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017 Dec 26;3(13):1475-1483. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2017.07.017. Epub 2017 Sep 27. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017. PMID: 29759827
Cited by
-
NL-EVDR: Netherlands-ExtraVascular Device Registry.Neth Heart J. 2023 May;31(5):181-184. doi: 10.1007/s12471-023-01768-1. Epub 2023 Mar 2. Neth Heart J. 2023. PMID: 36862338 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Modern subcutaneous implantable defibrillator therapy in patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies: data from a large multicentre registry.Europace. 2023 Aug 2;25(9):euad239. doi: 10.1093/europace/euad239. Europace. 2023. PMID: 37536671 Free PMC article.
-
Unexpected Genetic Twists in Patients with Cardiac Devices.J Clin Med. 2024 Jun 28;13(13):3801. doi: 10.3390/jcm13133801. J Clin Med. 2024. PMID: 38999368 Free PMC article.
-
[Treatment with cardiac electronic implantable devices].Herz. 2024 Jun;49(3):233-246. doi: 10.1007/s00059-024-05246-1. Epub 2024 May 6. Herz. 2024. PMID: 38709278 German.
-
Long-term safety and efficacy of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator compared with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in propensity score-matched patients from Japan.J Arrhythm. 2025 Apr 11;41(2):e70063. doi: 10.1002/joa3.70063. eCollection 2025 Apr. J Arrhythm. 2025. PMID: 40224931 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical