Search

IntroductionIn the context of randomized clinical trials, subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillators (S-ICDs) are non-inferior to transvenous ICDs (T-ICDs) concerning device-related complications or inappropriate shocks in patients with an indication for defibrillator therapy and not in need of pacing. We aimed at describing the clinical features of patients who underwent S-ICD implantation in our clinical practice, as well as the ICD-related complications and the inappropriate therapies among S-ICD vs. T-ICD recipients during a long-term follow-up.Materials and MethodsAll patients undergoing ICD, both S-ICD and TV-ICD, at Monaldi Hospital from January 1, 2015 to January 1, 2019 and followed up at our institution were included in the present analysis. The clinical variables associated with S-ICD implantation were evaluated by logistic regression analyses. We collected the ICD inappropriate therapies, ICD-related complications (including both pulse generator and lead-related complications), ICD-related infections, appropriate ICD therapies, and overall mortality. Kaplan-Meier (KM) analyses were performed to assess the risk of clinical outcome events between the two subgroups. A time-dependent Cox regression analysis was performed to adjust the results.ResultsTotal 607 consecutive patients (mean age 53.8 ± 16.8, male 77.8%) with both TV-ICD (n: 290, 47.8%) and S-ICD (n: 317, 52.2%), implanted and followed at our center for a mean follow-up of 1614 ± 1018 days, were included in the study. At multivariate logistic regression analysis, an independent association between S-ICD implantation and ionic channel disease [OR: 6.01 (2.26–15.87); p < 0.0001] and ischemic cardiomyopathy [OR: 0.20 (0.12–0.35); p < 0.0001] was shown. The KM analysis did not show a significantly different risk of the inappropriate ICD therapies (log rank p = 0.64) between the two subgroups; conversely, a significant increase in the risk of ICD-related complications (log rank p = 0.02) and infections (log rank p = 0.02) in TV-ICD group was shown. The adjusted risk for ICD-related infections [OR: 0.07 (0.009–0.55), p = 0.01] and complications [0.31 (0.12–0.81), p = 0.01] was significantly lower among patients with S-ICD.ConclusionsThe choice to implant S-ICD was mainly driven by younger age and the presence of ionic channel disease; conversely ischemic cardiomyopathy reduces the probability to use this technology. No significant differences in inappropriate ICD therapies were shown among S-ICD vs. TV-ICD group; moreover, S-ICD is characterized by a lower rate of infectious and non-infectious complications leading to surgical revision or extraction.

Introduction:Little is known about the clinical performance of single-chamber leadless pacemaker (LLPM) in patients without atrial fibrillation (AF) as pacing indication. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics of patients who underwent single chamber LLPM implantation at three tertiary referral centers and to compare the safety and effectiveness of the single-chamber LLPM among patients with or without AF.Materials and Methods:All the consecutive patients who underwent LLPM implantation at three referral centers were analyzed. The indications to LLPM in a real-world setting were described. The study population was divided into two groups according to AF as pacing indication. We assessed the procedure-related complications; moreover, we compared syncope, cardiac hospitalization, pacemaker syndrome, and all-cause death recurrence during the follow-up between patients with and without AF as pacing indication.Results:A total of 140 consecutive patients (mean age, 76.7 ± 11.24 years, men 64.3%) were included in the study. The indication to implantation of LLPM was permanent AF with slow ventricular response (n: 67; 47.8%), sinus node dysfunction (n: 25; 17.8%), third atrioventricular block (AVB) (n: 20; 14.2%), second-degree AVB (n: 18; 12.8%), and first degree AVB (n: 10; 7.1%). A total of 7 patients (5%) experienced perioperative complications with no differences between the AF vs. non-AF groups. During a mean follow-up of 606.5 ± 265.9 days, 10 patients (7.7%) died and 7 patients (5.4%) were reported for cardiac hospitalization; 5 patients (3.8%) experienced syncope; no patients showed pacemaker syndrome. No significant differences in the clinical events between the groups were shown. The Kaplan–Meier analysis for the combined endpoints did not show significant differences between the AF and non-AF groups [hazard ratio (HR): 0.94, 95% CI: 0.41–2.16; p = 0.88].Conclusion:Our real-world data suggest that LLPM may be considered a safe and reasonable treatment in patients without AF in need of pacing. Further studies are needed to confirm these preliminary results.