BACKGROUNDThe subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was designed to avoid complications related to the transvenous ICD lead by using an entirely extrathoracic placement. Evidence comparing these systems has been based primarily on observational studies. METHODSWe conducted a noninferiority trial in which patients with an indication for an ICD but no indication for pacing were assigned to receive a subcutaneous ICD or transvenous ICD. The primary end point was the composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks; the noninferiority margin for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio (subcutaneous ICD vs. transvenous ICD) was 1.45. A superiority analysis was prespecified if noninferiority was established. Secondary end points included death and appropriate shocks. RESULTSA total of 849 patients (426 in the subcutaneous ICD group and 423 in the transvenous ICD group) were included in the analyses. At a median follow-up of 49.1 months, a primary end-point event occurred in 68 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 68 patients in the transvenous ICD group (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimated cumulative incidence, 15.1% and 15.7%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.39; P = 0.01 for noninferiority; P = 0.95 for superiority). Device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 44 in the transvenous ICD group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.09); inappropriate shocks occurred in 41 and 29 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.89 to 2.30). Death occurred in 83 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 68 in the transvenous ICD group (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.70); appropriate shocks occurred in 83 and 57 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.08 to 2.12). CONCLUSIONSIn patients with an indication for an ICD but no indication for pacing, the subcutaneous ICD was noninferior to the transvenous ICD with respect to devicerelated complications and inappropriate shocks. (Funded by Boston Scientific; PRAETORIAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01296022.

The complication rate in patients implanted with an S-ICD or TV-ICD was similar, but their nature differed. The S-ICD reduced lead-related complications significantly, at the cost of nonlead-related complications. Rates of appropriate and inappropriate shocks were similar between the 2 groups.

This prospective blinded evaluation of the SP filter demonstrates that enabling the SP filter results in a significant reduction of inappropriate shocks by the S-ICD without a negative effect on appropriate shocks.

No abstract

No abstract

In ACHD, remarkably high rates of appropriate ICD therapy were reported, both in primary and secondary prevention. Because of the young age and lower death rates, the cumulative beneficial effects are likely greater in ACHD patients than in acquired heart disease patients. However, considering the high rates of inappropriate shocks and complications, case-by-case weighing of costs and benefits, remains essential.

AimsThe subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) was introduced to overcome complications related to transvenous leads. Adoption of the S-ICD requires implanters to learn a new implantation technique. The aim of this study was to assess the learning curve for S-ICD implanters with respect to implant-related complications, procedure time, and inappropriate shocks (IASs).Methods and resultsIn a pooled cohort from two clinical S-ICD databases, the IDE Trial and the EFFORTLESS Registry, complications, IASs at 180 days follow-up and implant procedure duration were assessed. Patients were grouped in quartiles based on experience of the implanter and Kaplan–Meier estimates of complication and IAS rates were calculated. A total of 882 patients implanted in 61 centres by 107 implanters with a median of 4 implants (IQR 1,8) were analysed. There were a total of 59 patients with complications and 48 patients with IAS. The complication rate decreased significantly from 9.8% in Quartile 1 (least experience) to 5.4% in Quartile 4 (most experience) (P = 0.02) and non-significantly for IAS from 7.9 to 4.8% (P = 0.10). Multivariable analysis demonstrated a hazard ratio of 0.78 (P = 0.045) for complications and 1.01 (P = 0.958) for IAS. Dual-zone programming increased with experience of the individual implanter (P < 0.001), which reduced IAS significantly in the multivariable model (HR 0.44, P = 0.01). Procedure time decreased from 75 to 65 min (P < 0.001). The complication rate and procedure time stabilized after Quartile 2 (>13 implants).ConclusionThere is a short and significant learning curve associated with physicians adopting the S-ICD. Performance stabilizes after 13 implants.

The model suggests that an S-ICD implantation strategy involving posterior generator location and coil and generator directly over the fascia without underlying fat is likely to markedly lower DFTs with the S-ICD and assist in troubleshooting of patients with unacceptably high DFTs.