The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter--defibrillator: A tertiary center experience

2Citations
Citations of this article
31Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) patients with regard to underlying etiology, peri-procedural outcome, appropriate/inappropriate shocks, and complications during follow-up. Methods: All patients who underwent S-ICD implantation from February 2013 to March 2017 at an academic hospital in Vienna were included. Medical records were examined and follow-up interrogations of devices were conducted. Results: A total of 79 S-ICD patients (58.2% males) with a mean age of 44.5 ± 17.2 years were followed for a mean duration of 12.8 ± 13.7 months. A majority of patients (58.2%) had S-ICD for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. The most common of the 16 underlying etiologies were ischemic cardiomyopathy, non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, and idiopathic ventricular fibrillation. The lead was implanted to the left sternal border in 96.2% of cases, between muscular layers in 72.2%. Mean implant time was 45 min, 3 patients were induced, and all patients except one were programmed to two zones. Six (7.6%) patients experienced at least one appropriate therapy for ventricular arrhythmias and the time to first event ranged from 1 to 52 months. Seven patients experienced inappropriate shocks due to T-wave oversensing, atrial tachycardia with rapid atrioventricular conduction, external electromagnetic interference, and/or baseline oversensing due to lead movement. Four patients underwent revision for lead repositioning (n = 1), loose device suture (n = 1), and infection (n = 2). Conclusions: While S-ICDs are a feasible and effective treatment, issues remain with inappropriate shock and infection.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Khazen, C., Magnusson, P., Flandorfer, J., & Schukro, C. (2019). The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter--defibrillator: A tertiary center experience. Cardiology Journal, 26(5), 543–549. https://doi.org/10.5603/CJ.a2018.0050

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