Air entrapment as a cause of S-ICD inappropriate shocks

Iavarone, Michele; Russo, Vincenzo

doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2022.05.012

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The main causes of the inappropriate ICD therapies in our study cohort were the misdetection of supraventricular arrhythmias, mainly AF, in the TV-ICD group and the oversensing due to air entrapment in the S-ICD group. This latter evidence underlines the need to perform a systematic approach including device interrogation, provocative maneuvers, and chest radiography to early detect this early complication and an uncommon cause of IAS in S-ICD recipients [ 15 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator among drug-induced type-1 ECG pattern Brugada syndrome: a propensity score matching analysis from IBRYD study

Russo

Caturano²,

Guerra³

et al. 2022

Heart Vessels

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

No real-world data are available about the complications rate in drug-induced type 1 Brugada Syndrome (BrS) patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Aim of our study is to compare the device-related complications, infections, and inappropriate therapies among drug-induced type 1 BrS patients with transvenous- ICD (TV-ICD) versus subcutaneous-ICD (S-ICD). Data for this study were sourced from the IBRYD (Italian BRugada sYnDrome) registry which includes 619 drug-induced type-1 BrS patients followed at 20 Italian tertiary referral hospitals. For the present analysis, we selected 258 consecutive BrS patients implanted with ICD. 198 patients (76.7%) received a TV-ICD, while 60 a S-ICD (23.4%). And were followed-up for a median time of 84.3 [46.5–147] months. ICD inappropriate therapies were experienced by 16 patients (6.2%). 14 patients (7.1%) in the TVICD group and 2 patients (3.3%) in S-ICD group (log-rank P = 0.64). ICD-related complications occurred in 31 patients (12%); 29 (14.6%) in TV-ICD group and 2 (3.3%) in S-ICD group (log-rank P = 0.41). ICD-related infections occurred in 10 patients (3.88%); 9 (4.5%) in TV-ICD group and 1 (1.8%) in S-ICD group (log-rank P = 0.80). After balancing for potential confounders using the propensity score matching technique, no differences were found in terms of clinical outcomes between the two groups. In a real-world setting of drug-induced type-1 BrS patients with ICD, no significant differences in inappropriate ICD therapies, device-related complications, and infections were shown among S-ICD vs TV-ICD. However, a reduction in lead-related complications was observed in the S-ICD group. In conclusion, our evidence suggests that S-ICD is at least non-inferior to TV-ICD in this population and may also reduce the risk of lead-related complications which can expose the patients to the necessity of lead extractions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%