Combined therapy with subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillator and leadless pacemaker in a patient with persistent left superior vena cava and mega coronary sinus: A challenging case for the best treatment

Gatto, Maria Chiara; Sanctis, Valerio De; Percoco, Francesca; Persi, Alessandro; Dominici, Tania; Moretti, Andréa; Evangelista, Franco; Mantica, Massimo; Kol, Amir

doi:10.1002/joa3.12613

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, a new substernal system of extravascular ICD is currently under evaluation 38 . The novel modular cardiac rhythm management (mCRM) system has already been described which consists of ATP‐enabled leadless cardiac pacemaker and S‐ICD, where there is an integrated wireless interbody communication between the two 39,40 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A real‐world experience of subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardiac defibrillators—comparison with the PRAETORIAN study

Khanra

Hamid

Patel

et al. 2022

Journal of Arrhythmia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: PRAETORIAN is the first randomized controlled trial that demonstrated the noninferiority of subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) in comparison with transvenous ICD (TV-ICD). We retrospectively reviewed electronic records of patients with ICD implanted over the past 6 years, with the primary objective to compare our real-world single tertiary center experience with the randomized data from the PRAETORIAN study.Methods: Seventy S-ICD patients were compared with 197 TV-ICD patients, from July 2014 to June 2020 retrospectively, over a median period of 1304 days (296-2451 days). Primary composite endpoints included inappropriate shocks and devicerelated malfunctions.Results: Patients with S-ICD implantation were younger than those who received TV-ICD (mean, 49.7 years vs 63.9 years, p < .001). About 31.4% of S-ICDs were implanted for secondary prevention, and 58.6% of S-ICD patients had ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) with a median left ventricular ejection fraction of 32.5% (range: 10-67%). S-ICDs and TV-ICD had statistically similar inappropriate shocks (4.3% vs 4.6%, p = .78), device-related complications (11.4% vs 9.1%, p = .93), and the overall primary endpoints (15.7% vs 13.7%, p = .68). The findings remained the same even after age and gender adjustments and time-dependent analysis. Conclusion:Although single-center experience with a small number of S-ICD patients, results of the PRAETORIAN study has been replicated in our real-world experience of S-ICD and TV-ICD implantations across diverse etiologies, indications, and age groups confirming the comparable performance of S-ICD and TV-ICD when implanted in selected patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A real‐world experience of subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardiac defibrillators—comparison with the PRAETORIAN study

Khanra

Hamid

Patel

et al. 2022

Journal of Arrhythmia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a report of leadless pacemaker implantation in combination with a subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillator, the usefulness of the technique for patients in whom it is difficult to insert a pacemaker lead into the right atrium and ventricle due to venous malformation has been clearly demonstrated [9]. Therefore, leadless pacemakers will be beneficial in device-implantation therapies for venous malformations in which it is difficult to insert leads and implant devices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Atrioventricular Block in a Patient with Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava and Absent Right Subclavian Vein: A Case Report

Kojima¹,

Hattori²,

Abe³

et al. 2022

IJCICR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava (PLSVC) is an uncommon congenital anomaly, with an incidence of 0.5% in the general population. Moreover, the right superior vena cava anomaly with PLSVC is even rarer, with an incidence of 0.09%-0.13% in the general population. Patients with PLSVC and an absent right subclavian vein may present complications when undergoing conventional pacemaker lead implantation due to their vein anomalies. In this case report, a leadless pacemaker proved to be a useful alternative in a patient with the complete atrioventricular block with PLSVC and an absent right subclavian vein defect, the latter being found incidentally during the initial pacemaker implantation. This case highlights the importance of evaluating the presence of vascular malformations before surgical intervention.

show abstract

The substernal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: First experience combining an extravascular-implantable cardioverter-defibrillator with a dual-chamber transvenous pacemaker

Römers,

Liebregts,

van Dijk

et al. 2024

HeartRhythm Case Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Combined therapy with subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillator and leadless pacemaker in a patient with persistent left superior vena cava and mega coronary sinus: A challenging case for the best treatment

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

A real‐world experience of subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardiac defibrillators—comparison with the PRAETORIAN study

A real‐world experience of subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardiac defibrillators—comparison with the PRAETORIAN study

Atrioventricular Block in a Patient with Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava and Absent Right Subclavian Vein: A Case Report

The substernal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: First experience combining an extravascular-implantable cardioverter-defibrillator with a dual-chamber transvenous pacemaker

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About