Device-related complications in subcutaneous versus transvenous ICD: a secondary analysis of the PRAETORIAN trial.
Complications
Infections
Invasive interventions
Lead-related complications
Subcutaneous ICD
Transvenous ICD
Journal
European heart journal
ISSN: 1522-9645
Titre abrégé: Eur Heart J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8006263
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 12 2022
14 12 2022
Historique:
received:
28
07
2022
revised:
23
08
2022
accepted:
25
08
2022
pubmed:
29
8
2022
medline:
16
12
2022
entrez:
28
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is developed to overcome lead-related complications and systemic infections, inherent to transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) therapy. The PRAETORIAN trial demonstrated that the S-ICD is non-inferior to the TV-ICD with regard to the combined primary endpoint of inappropriate shocks and complications. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates all complications in the PRAETORIAN trial. The PRAETORIAN trial is an international, multicentre, randomized trial in which 849 patients with an indication for ICD therapy were randomized to receive an S- ICD (N = 426) or TV-ICD (N = 423) and followed for a median of 49 months. Endpoints were device-related complications, lead-related complications, systemic infections, and the need for invasive interventions. Thirty-six device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the S-ICD group of which bleedings were the most frequent. In the TV-ICD group, 49 complications occurred in 44 patients of which lead dysfunction was most frequent (HR: 0.69; P = 0.11). In both groups, half of all complications were within 30 days after implantation. Lead-related complications and systemic infections occurred significantly less in the S-ICD group compared with the TV-ICD group (P < 0.001, P = 0.03, respectively). Significantly more complications required invasive interventions in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group (8.3% vs. 4.3%, HR: 0.59; P = 0.047). This secondary analysis shows that lead-related complications and systemic infections are more prevalent in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group. In addition, complications in the TV-ICD group were more severe as they required significantly more invasive interventions. This data contributes to shared decision-making in clinical practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is developed to overcome lead-related complications and systemic infections, inherent to transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) therapy. The PRAETORIAN trial demonstrated that the S-ICD is non-inferior to the TV-ICD with regard to the combined primary endpoint of inappropriate shocks and complications. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates all complications in the PRAETORIAN trial.
METHODS AND RESULTS
The PRAETORIAN trial is an international, multicentre, randomized trial in which 849 patients with an indication for ICD therapy were randomized to receive an S- ICD (N = 426) or TV-ICD (N = 423) and followed for a median of 49 months. Endpoints were device-related complications, lead-related complications, systemic infections, and the need for invasive interventions. Thirty-six device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the S-ICD group of which bleedings were the most frequent. In the TV-ICD group, 49 complications occurred in 44 patients of which lead dysfunction was most frequent (HR: 0.69; P = 0.11). In both groups, half of all complications were within 30 days after implantation. Lead-related complications and systemic infections occurred significantly less in the S-ICD group compared with the TV-ICD group (P < 0.001, P = 0.03, respectively). Significantly more complications required invasive interventions in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group (8.3% vs. 4.3%, HR: 0.59; P = 0.047).
CONCLUSION
This secondary analysis shows that lead-related complications and systemic infections are more prevalent in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group. In addition, complications in the TV-ICD group were more severe as they required significantly more invasive interventions. This data contributes to shared decision-making in clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36030464
pii: 6678120
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac496
pmc: PMC9748587
doi:
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4872-4883Subventions
Organisme : Boston Scientific
ID : ISROTH20076
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest: R.E.K reports consultancy fees and research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Cairdac and has stock options from AtaCor Medical Inc. S.M. reports consultancy fees from Boston Scientific. K.V. reports consultancy fees from Medtronic and Abbott. M.C.B. is a consultant and receives honoraria, as well as research grants from Boston Scientific and has equity in and is chief medical officer for AtaCor Medical, Inc. D.J.W. has consultancy arrangements with Boston Scientific and Medtronic and a research grant from Boston Scientific. P.N. reports modest speaker honoraria from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. M.A.M. reports consultancy fees from Boston Scientific. Z.I.W. is an advisor for Boston Scientific and on the advisory board for Medtronic and Abbot and reports speaker fees from Medtronic. The other authors report no conflicts.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2010 Jul 1;363(1):36-44
pubmed: 20463331
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10
pubmed: 26903338
Eur Heart J. 2014 May;35(18):1186-94
pubmed: 24347317
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2016 Feb;2(1):89-96
pubmed: 29766859
Circulation. 2021 Jan 5;143(1):7-17
pubmed: 33073614
N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 6;383(6):526-536
pubmed: 32757521
Europace. 2014 Oct;16(10):1490-5
pubmed: 25087154
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020 Nov;6(12):1537-1550
pubmed: 33213814
Heart Rhythm. 2011 Oct;8(10):1622-8
pubmed: 21699827
N Engl J Med. 2013 May 30;368(22):2084-93
pubmed: 23659733
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 15;70(7):830-841
pubmed: 28797351
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2018 Jul;41(7):799-806
pubmed: 29659027
Int J Cardiol. 2013 Oct 9;168(4):4184-90
pubmed: 23948108
Europace. 2021 Mar 8;23(3):395-399
pubmed: 33197266
Eur Heart J. 2015 Nov 1;36(41):2793-2867
pubmed: 26320108
Europace. 2016 Jul;18(7):1010-5
pubmed: 26324840
Am Heart J. 2012 May;163(5):753-760.e2
pubmed: 22607851
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 May 8;49(18):1851-9
pubmed: 17481444
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jan 20;352(3):225-37
pubmed: 15659722
Heart Rhythm. 2021 Mar;18(3):382-391
pubmed: 33212250
N Engl J Med. 2002 Mar 21;346(12):877-83
pubmed: 11907286
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Jul 05;165(1):20-29
pubmed: 27135392
J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 May 10;7(10):
pubmed: 29748177
Heart Rhythm. 2019 Mar;16(3):403-410
pubmed: 30292861
Europace. 2018 Sep 1;20(FI2):f240-f248
pubmed: 29771327
Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol. 2018 Dec;29(4):355-361
pubmed: 30382341
J Am Heart Assoc. 2022 Jun 7;11(11):e024756
pubmed: 35656975
Circulation. 2013 Aug 27;128(9):944-53
pubmed: 23979626
Eur Heart J. 2022 Jun 1;43(21):2037-2050
pubmed: 35090007
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2021 Jun;32(6):1712-1723
pubmed: 33969569