Performance and outcome of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator after transvenous lead extraction
Standard
Performance and outcome of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator after transvenous lead extraction. / Chung, Da-Un; Tauber, Johannes; Kaiser, Lukas; Schlichting, Andrea; Pecha, Simon; Sinning, Christoph; Rexha, Enida; Reichenspurner, Hermann; Willems, Stephan; Gosau, Nils; Hakmi, Samer.
In: PACE, Vol. 44, No. 2, 02.2021, p. 247-257.Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Performance and outcome of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator after transvenous lead extraction
AU - Chung, Da-Un
AU - Tauber, Johannes
AU - Kaiser, Lukas
AU - Schlichting, Andrea
AU - Pecha, Simon
AU - Sinning, Christoph
AU - Rexha, Enida
AU - Reichenspurner, Hermann
AU - Willems, Stephan
AU - Gosau, Nils
AU - Hakmi, Samer
N1 - © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
PY - 2021/2
Y1 - 2021/2
N2 - AIMS: The subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) may be a valuable option in patients after successful transvenous lead extraction (TLE) without indication for pacemaker therapy and persistent risk of sudden cardiac death. The aim of this study was to evaluate device performance, postoperative outcome, and safety in patients who received a S-ICD after TLE compared to patients who underwent de-novo S-ICD implantation.METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients included into our institution's S-ICD database between September 2010 and May 2019 was conducted.The patients were divided in two groups, depending on whether they had received their S-ICD after TLE (n = 31) or de-novo (n = 113).RESULTS: The TLE group was significantly older with a mean age of 54.3 ± 15.7 versus 46.7 ± 14.4 years; p = .007. Leading S-ICD indication in the TLE group was previous infection (50%), whereas in the de-novo group the S-ICD was primarily chosen due to young patient age (74.6%). Median duration of follow-up was 527.0 versus 472.5 days, respectively; p = .576. Most common complication during follow-up was inappropriate ICD therapy (12.9% vs. 13.3%); p = 1.000. Pocket erosion/infection occurred in 3.2% versus 3.5% with no reported cases of systemic (re-)infection in either group; p = 1.000. All-cause mortality was low (6.2% vs. 2.7%) and entirely unrelated to S-ICD implantation or the device itself; p = .293.CONCLUSION: The S-ICD is a safe and effective alternative for patients after TLE with very similar results regarding device performance and postoperative outcome, when compared to patients who underwent de-novo S-ICD implantation.
AB - AIMS: The subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) may be a valuable option in patients after successful transvenous lead extraction (TLE) without indication for pacemaker therapy and persistent risk of sudden cardiac death. The aim of this study was to evaluate device performance, postoperative outcome, and safety in patients who received a S-ICD after TLE compared to patients who underwent de-novo S-ICD implantation.METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients included into our institution's S-ICD database between September 2010 and May 2019 was conducted.The patients were divided in two groups, depending on whether they had received their S-ICD after TLE (n = 31) or de-novo (n = 113).RESULTS: The TLE group was significantly older with a mean age of 54.3 ± 15.7 versus 46.7 ± 14.4 years; p = .007. Leading S-ICD indication in the TLE group was previous infection (50%), whereas in the de-novo group the S-ICD was primarily chosen due to young patient age (74.6%). Median duration of follow-up was 527.0 versus 472.5 days, respectively; p = .576. Most common complication during follow-up was inappropriate ICD therapy (12.9% vs. 13.3%); p = 1.000. Pocket erosion/infection occurred in 3.2% versus 3.5% with no reported cases of systemic (re-)infection in either group; p = 1.000. All-cause mortality was low (6.2% vs. 2.7%) and entirely unrelated to S-ICD implantation or the device itself; p = .293.CONCLUSION: The S-ICD is a safe and effective alternative for patients after TLE with very similar results regarding device performance and postoperative outcome, when compared to patients who underwent de-novo S-ICD implantation.
U2 - 10.1111/pace.14157
DO - 10.1111/pace.14157
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 33377195
VL - 44
SP - 247
EP - 257
JO - PACE
JF - PACE
SN - 0147-8389
IS - 2
ER -