Efficacy and Safety of Appropriate Shocks and Antitachycardia Pacing in Transvenous and Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillators: Analysis of All Appropriate Therapy in the PRAETORIAN Trial.
defibrillators, implantable
electrophysiology
tachycardia
Journal
Circulation
ISSN: 1524-4539
Titre abrégé: Circulation
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0147763
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2022
02 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
16
11
2021
medline:
23
2
2022
entrez:
15
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The PRAETORIAN trial (A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Subcutaneous and Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy) showed noninferiority of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) compared with transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) with regard to inappropriate shocks and complications. In contrast to TV-ICD, S-ICD cannot provide antitachycardia pacing for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates appropriate therapy and whether antitachycardia pacing reduces the number of appropriate shocks. The PRAETORIAN trial was an international, investigator-initiated randomized trial that included patients with an indication for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Patients with previous ventricular tachycardia <170 bpm or refractory recurrent monomorphic ventricular tachycardia were excluded. In 39 centers, 849 patients were randomized to receive an S-ICD (n=426) or TV-ICD (n=423) and were followed for a median of 49.1 months. ICD programming was mandated by protocol. Appropriate ICD therapy was defined as therapy for ventricular arrhythmias. Arrhythmias were classified as discrete episodes and storm episodes (≥3 episodes within 24 hours). Analyses were performed in the modified intention-to-treat population. In the S-ICD group, 86 of 426 patients received appropriate therapy, versus 78 of 423 patients in the TV-ICD group, during a median follow-up of 52 months (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimates 19.4% and 17.5%; In this trial, no difference was observed in shock efficacy of S-ICD compared with TV-ICD. Although patients in the S-ICD group were more likely to receive an ICD shock, the total number of appropriate shocks was not different between the 2 groups. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01296022.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The PRAETORIAN trial (A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Subcutaneous and Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy) showed noninferiority of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) compared with transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) with regard to inappropriate shocks and complications. In contrast to TV-ICD, S-ICD cannot provide antitachycardia pacing for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates appropriate therapy and whether antitachycardia pacing reduces the number of appropriate shocks.
METHODS
The PRAETORIAN trial was an international, investigator-initiated randomized trial that included patients with an indication for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Patients with previous ventricular tachycardia <170 bpm or refractory recurrent monomorphic ventricular tachycardia were excluded. In 39 centers, 849 patients were randomized to receive an S-ICD (n=426) or TV-ICD (n=423) and were followed for a median of 49.1 months. ICD programming was mandated by protocol. Appropriate ICD therapy was defined as therapy for ventricular arrhythmias. Arrhythmias were classified as discrete episodes and storm episodes (≥3 episodes within 24 hours). Analyses were performed in the modified intention-to-treat population.
RESULTS
In the S-ICD group, 86 of 426 patients received appropriate therapy, versus 78 of 423 patients in the TV-ICD group, during a median follow-up of 52 months (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimates 19.4% and 17.5%;
CONCLUSIONS
In this trial, no difference was observed in shock efficacy of S-ICD compared with TV-ICD. Although patients in the S-ICD group were more likely to receive an ICD shock, the total number of appropriate shocks was not different between the 2 groups. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01296022.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34779221
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.057816
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01296022']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
321-329Investigateurs
Marco Alings
(M)
Cornelis P Allaart
(CP)
Elijah R Behr
(ER)
Timothy R Betts
(TR)
Nick R Bijsterveld
(NR)
Lucas V A Boersma
(LVA)
Hendrik Bonnemeier
(H)
Alida E Borger van der Burg
(AE)
Frank A L E Bracke
(FALE)
Marc A Brouwer
(MA)
Tom F Brouwer
(TF)
Martin C Burke
(MC)
Jim W Cheung
(JW)
Alexandru B Chicos
(AB)
Jude F Clancy
(JF)
Peter Paul H M Delnoy
(PPHM)
Jose M Dizon
(JM)
Mikhael F El-Chami
(MF)
Tjeerd Germans
(T)
Joris R de Groot
(JR)
Ward P J Jansen
(WPJ)
Jonas S S G de Jong
(JSSG)
Stefan Kaab
(S)
Michael Knaut
(M)
Reinoud E Knops
(RE)
Kirsten M Kooiman
(KM)
Juergen Kuschyk
(J)
Pier D Lambiase
(PD)
Francisco Leyva
(F)
Marc A Miller
(MA)
Suneet Mittal
(S)
Dmitry Nemirovsky
(D)
Petr Neuzil
(P)
Peter Nordbeck
(P)
Louise R A Olde Nordkamp
(LRA)
Jurren M van Opstal
(JM)
Berit T Philbert
(BT)
Anne-Floor B E Quast
(ABE)
Sergio Richter
(S)
Lonneke Smeding
(L)
Willeke van der Stuijt
(W)
Ralf Surber
(R)
Dominic A M J Theuns
(DAMJ)
Jan G P Tijssen
(JGP)
Gaurav A Upadhyay
(GA)
Kevin Vernooy
(K)
Anouk de Weger
(A)
Raul Weiss
(R)
Zachary I Whinnet
(ZI)
Arthur A M Wilde
(AAM)
David J Wright
(DJ)
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn