Search

Background: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD). Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis are at a very high risk of infection from cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation as well as mortality. In the present study, we compared the long-term complications and outcomes between subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) and transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) recipients. Methods: In this retrospective analysis, we analyzed a total of 43 patients with ESRD requiring dialysis who received either a prophylactic S-ICD (26 patients) or a single right ventricular lead TV-ICD (17 patients) at seven experienced centers in Germany. Follow-up was performed bi-annually, at the end of which the data concerning comorbidities and, if applicable, reason for death were checked and confirmed with patients' general practitioner, nephrologist and cardiologist. Results: The median follow up duration was 95.6 months (range 42.8–126.3 months). Baseline characteristics were without noteworthy significant differences between groups. During follow-up (FU), there were significantly more device-associated infections (HR 8.72, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.18 to 12.85, p < 0.05) and device-associated hospitalizations (HR 10.20, 95% CI 1.22 to 84.61, p < 0.001), as well as a higher cardiovascular mortality (HR 9.17, 95% CI 1.12 to 8.33, p < 0.05), in the TV-ICD group. The number of patients requiring hospitalization for any reason was significantly higher in the TV-ICD group (HR 2.59, 95% CI 1.12 to 6.41, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in overall mortality (HR 1.92, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.15, p = 0.274). Conclusions: Our data suggest that, in this extended follow-up in seriously compromised renal patients on dialysis, the S-ICD patients have statistically fewer device infections and hospitalizations as well as lower cardiac mortality compared with the TV-ICD cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The benefit of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) in elderly patients has been questioned. In the present study, we aimed to analyse the outcome of patients of different age groups with ICD implantation. Methods: We included all patients who received an ICD in our hospital from 2011 to 2020. Primary endpoints were (1) death from any cause and (2) appropriate ICD therapy (antitachycardia pacing/shock). A "benefit of ICD implantation" was defined as appropriate ICD therapy before death from any cause/or survival. "No benefit of ICD implantation" was defined as death from any cause without prior appropriate ICD therapy. Results: A total of 422 patients received an ICD (primary prophylaxis n = 323, secondary prophylaxis n = 99). At the time of implantation, 35 patients (8%) were >80 years and 106 patients were >75 years (25%). During the study period of 4.2 ± 3 years, benefit of ICD occurred in 89 patients (21%) and no benefit in 84 patients (20%). In primary prevention, the proportion of patients who had a benefit from ICD implantation decreased with increasing age, and there were no patients who benefited from ICD therapy in the group of patients >80 years. In secondary prophylaxis, the proportion of patients with a benefit from ICD implantation ranged from 20% to 30% in all age groups. Conclusion: Our study suggests that the indication of primary prophylactic ICD in elderly and very old patients should be critically assessed. On the other hand, no patient should be denied secondary prophylactic ICD implantation because of age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]