Propensity score matched comparison of subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in the SIMPLE and EFFORTLESS studies

40Citations
Citations of this article
60Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Aims Comparison of outcomes between subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD and TV-ICD) therapy is hampered by varying patient characteristics and complication definitions. The aim of this analysis is to compare clinical outcomes of S-ICD and TV-ICD therapy in a matched cohort. Methods Patients implanted with de novo implantable cardioverter-defibrillators without need for pacing were selected from two and results studies: SIMPLE (n = 1091 single and n = 553 dual chamber TV-ICDs) and EFFORTLESS (n = 798 S-ICDs). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients were 1:1 matched on propensity score to TV-ICD patients. Propensity scores were calculated using 15 baseline characteristics including diagnosis. The Kaplan-Meier estimates for complications requiring invasive intervention, appropriate shocks, and inappropriate shocks were calculated at 3 years follow-up. The primary analysis yielded 391 patients pairs with balanced baseline characteristics, with mean age 55 ± 14 years, 49% ischaemic cardiomyopathy, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 40%, 71% primary prevention, and 89% of TV-ICDs were single chamber. Follow-up was mean 2.9 years in the S-ICD arm vs. 3.3 in the TV-ICD arm. All-cause complications occurred in 9.0% of S-ICD vs. 6.5% of TV-ICD patients, P = 0.29. Appropriate shocks occurred in 9.9% of S-ICD vs. 13.8% in TV-ICD patients, P = 0.03 and inappropriate shocks in 11.9% in S-ICD vs. 8.9% in TV-ICD patients (P = 0.07). Total shock burden (20 vs. 31, P = 0.05) and appropriate shock burden per 100 patients years (9 vs. 18, P = 0.02) were lower for S-ICD patients, while inappropriate shock burden was equal (11 vs. 13, P = 0.56). Conclusion The earliest experience of the S-ICD demonstrates similar outcomes as contemporary TV-ICD therapy in a matched comparison with predominately single-chamber devices at 3 years follow-up.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Brouwer, T. F., Knops, R. E., Kutyifa, V., Barr, C., Mondésert, B., Boersma, L. V. A., … Healey, J. S. (2018). Propensity score matched comparison of subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in the SIMPLE and EFFORTLESS studies. Europace, 20(FI2), F240–F248. https://doi.org/10.1093/EUROPACE/EUY083

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free