Search

Background: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to the transvenous ICD. No study has yet compared S-ICD and transvenous ICD by assessing patient acceptance as a patient-centered outcome., Objective: To evaluate the patient acceptance of the S-ICD and to investigate its association with clinical and implantation variables. In patients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the acceptance of the S-ICD was compared with a control group of patients who received a transvenous ICD., Methods: Patient acceptance was calculated with the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS) which measures four factors: return to function (RTF), device-related distress (DRD), positive appraisal (PA), and body image concerns (BIC). The survey was administered 12 months after implantation., Results: 176 patients underwent S-ICD implantation. The total FPAS and the single factors did not differ according to gender, body habitus, or generator positioning. Patients with HFrEF had lower FPAS and RTF. Younger patients showed better RTF (75 [56-94] vs. 56 [50-81], p = .029). Patients who experienced device complications or device therapies showed higher DRD (40 [35-60] vs. 25 [10-50], p = .019). Patients with HFrEF receiving the S-ICD had comparable FPAS, RTF, DRD, and BIC to HFrEF patients implanted with the transvenous ICD while exhibited significantly better PA (88 [75-100] vs. 81 [63-94], p = .02)., Conclusions: Our analysis revealed positive patient acceptance of the S-ICD, even in groups at risk of more distress such as women or patients with thinner body habitus, and regardless of the generator positioning. Among patients receiving ICDs for HFrEF, S-ICD was associated with better PA versus transvenous ICD., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: The traditional technique for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation involves three incisions and a subcutaneous (SC) pocket. An intermuscular (IM) 2-incision technique has been recently adopted., Aims: We assessed acute defibrillation efficacy (DE) of S-ICD (DE ≤65 J) according to the implantation technique., Methods: We analyzed consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD implantation and DE testing at 53 Italian centers. Regression analysis was used to determine the association between DFT and implantation technique., Results: A total of 805 patients were enrolled. Four groups were assessed: IM + 2 incisions (n = 546), SC + 2 incisions (n = 133), SC + 3 incisions (n = 111), and IM + 3 incisions (n = 15). DE was ≤65 J in 782 (97.1%) patients. Patients with DE ≤65 J showed a trend towards lower body mass index (25.1 vs. 26.5; p = .12), were less frequently on antiarrhythmic drugs (13% vs. 26%; p = .06) and more commonly underwent implantation with the 2-incision technique (85% vs. 70%; p = .04). The IM + 2-incision technique showed the lowest defibrillation failure rate (2.2%) and shock impedance (66 Ohm, interquartile range: 57-77). On multivariate analysis, the 2-incision technique was associated with a lower incidence of shock failure (hazard ratio: 0.305; 95% confidence interval: 0.102-0.907; p = .033). Shock impedance was lower with the IM than with the SC approach (66 vs. 70 Ohm p = .002) and with the 2-incision than the 3-incision technique (67 vs. 72 Ohm; p = .006)., Conclusions: In a large population of S-ICD patients, we observed a high defibrillation success rate. The IM + 2-incision technique provides lower shock impedance and a higher likelihood of successful defibrillation., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)