4.4 Article

Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable defibrillator in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Journal

HEART RHYTHM
Volume 19, Issue 5, Pages 759-767

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2022.01.013

Keywords

Antitachycardia pacing; Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; Programming; Subcutaneous defibrillator; Ventricular tachycardia

Funding

  1. Dr Lior Jankelson, Leon H. Charney Division of Cardiology, New York University Langone Health, 516 1st Avenue, New York, NY 10016

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to assess the incidence of ICD therapy in patients with HCM implanted with TV-ICD vs S-ICD in real-world settings.
BACKGROUND Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is the most prevalent inherited cardiomyopathy. The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is important for prevention of sud-den cardiac death (SCD) in patients at high risk. In recent years, the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has emerged as a viable alternative to the transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD). The S-ICD does not require intra-vascular access; however, it cannot provide antitachycardia pacing (ATP) therapy. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to assess the real-world incidence of ICD therapy in patients with HCM implanted with TV-ICD vs S-ICD. METHODS We compared the incidence of ATP and shock therapies among all HCM patients with S-ICD and TV-ICD enrolled in the Bos-ton Scientific ALTITUDE database. Cumulative Kaplan-Meier inci-dence was used to compare therapy-free survival, and Cox proportional hazard ratios were calculated. We performed unmatched as well as propensity match analyses. RESULTS We included 2047 patients with TV-ICD and 626 patients with S-ICD, followed for an average of 1650.5 +/- 1038.5 days and 933.4 +/- 550.6 days, respectively. Patients with HCM and TV-ICD had a significantly higher rate of device therapy compared to those with S-ICD (32.7 vs 14.5 therapies per 100 patient-years, respec-tively; P ,.001), driven by a high incidence of ATP therapy in the TV-ICD group, which accounted for .67% of therapies delivered. Shock incidence was similar between groups, both in the general and the matched cohorts. CONCLUSION Patients with HCM and S-ICD had a significantly lower therapy rate than patients with TV-ICD without difference in shock therapy, suggesting potentially unnecessary ATP therapy. Empirical ATP programming in patients with HCM may be unbeneficial.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available