Dutch Outcome in Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillator Therapy: Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillator–Related Complications in a Contemporary Primary Prevention Cohort

Abstract

Background One third of primary prevention implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator patients receive appropriate therapy, but all remain at risk of defibrillator complications. Information on these complications in contemporary cohorts is limited. This study assessed complications and their risk factors after defibrillator implantation in a Dutch nationwide prospective registry cohort and forecasts the potential reduction in complications under distinct scenarios of updated indication criteria. Methods and Results Complications in a prospective multicenter registry cohort of 1442 primary implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implant patients were classified as major or minor. The potential for reducing complications was derived from a newly developed prediction model of appropriate therapy to identify patients with a low probability of benefitting from the implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator. During a follow‐up of 2.2 years (interquartile range, 2.0–2.6 years), 228 complications occurred in 195 patients (13.6%), with 113 patients (7.8%) experiencing at least one major complication. Most common ones were lead related (n=93) and infection (n=18). Minor complications occurred in 6.8% of patients, with lead‐related (n=47) and pocket‐related (n=40) complications as the most prevailing ones. A surgical reintervention or additional hospitalization was required in 53% or 61% of complications, respectively. Complications were strongly associated with device type. Application of stricter implant indication results in a comparable proportional reduction of (major) complications. Conclusions One in 13 patients experiences at least one major implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator–related complication, and many patients undergo a surgical reintervention. Complications are related to defibrillator implantations, and these should be discussed with the patient. Stricter implant indication criteria and careful selection of device type implanted may have significant clinical and financial benefits.

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces indications for arrhythmic primary prevention in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: insights from DISCOVER-ARNI, a multicenter Italian register

“…infections, inappropriate shocks, lead dislodgement/dysfunction, pneumothorax, pocket haematoma or bleeding, 5 , 21–23 and hospitalization. The complications were recently quantified to affect 1/13 patients over 2 years in a big Dutch cohort 24 with high costs for NHS. A cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that in patients with HFrEF, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan would increase survival at lower costs compared with an ICD.…”

Sex-specific aspects of phospholamban cardiomyopathy: The importance and prognostic value of low-voltage electrocardiograms

“…ICD placement is not without risks because up to 10% of patients experience at least one complication. 18,19 Our results…”

Delayed Improvement of Left Ventricular Function in Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure Depends on Etiology—A PROLONG-II Substudy

“…Since then, the prognosis of heart failure patients has improved [11,40]. Because of relevant complication rates, unnecessary ICD implantations should be avoided and ICD indications evaluated critically [9,88]. In fact, ICD implantation numbers have recently declined [89,90].…”