Outcome of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease on Dialysis

Subcutaneous ICD in Dialysis Patients BackgroundAlthough the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD (R)) is an attractive alternative in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), data on S-ICD outcomes in dialysis patients are lacking. MethodsPatients with cardiomyopathy undergoing S-ICD implantation in our center were stratified by need for chronic dialysis at the time of implant. The primary endpoint was incidence of death, heart failure hospitalization or appropriate S-ICD shocks, and secondary endpoints were incidence of inappropriate shocks or implant related complications requiring surgical re-intervention. Mean follow-up was longer in the nondialysis cohort (514 495 vs. 227 233 days, P = 0.006), so all endpoints were analyzed using time-dependent comparisons and reported as annual event rates. ResultsOut of 79 S-ICD implants included in this analysis, 27 patients were on dialysis. Dialysis patients were older and more likely to be diabetic. Mean ejection fraction across the entire cohort was 26.9% without significant difference between dialysis and nondialysis groups. Although not significant, the incidence of the primary endpoint was higher in the dialysis cohort (23.8%/year vs. 10.9%/year, P = 0.317), driven primarily by a higher rate of appropriate shocks. The rate of inappropriate shocks was similar between groups (dialysis 6.0%/year vs. nondialysis 6.8%/year, P = 0.509). No patients in the dialysis cohort had complications requiring surgical re-intervention versus 6 patients in the nondialysis cohort (P = 0.086). ConclusionsOur data suggest that S-ICD implantation in dialysis patients is not associated with an excess risk of implant related complications or inappropriate shocks.