Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators in children and young adults: A meta-analysis.
device-related complications
implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
inappropriate shock
subcutaneous ICD
sudden cardiac death
transvenous-implantable cardioverter defibrillator
Journal
Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE
ISSN: 1540-8159
Titre abrégé: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7803944
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2022
12 2022
Historique:
revised:
20
09
2022
received:
03
08
2022
accepted:
27
09
2022
pubmed:
11
10
2022
medline:
15
12
2022
entrez:
10
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has been demonstrated to successfully prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD) in children and young adults. A wide range of device-related complications/malfunctions have been described, which depend on the intrinsic design of the defibrillation system (transvenous-implantable cardioverter defibrillator [TV-ICD] vs. subcutaneous-implantable cardioverter defibrillator [S-ICD]). To compare the device-related complications and inappropriate shocks with TV-ICD versus S-ICD. Electronic databases were queried for studies focusing on the prevention of SCD in children and young adults with TV-ICD or S-ICD. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as odds ratio (OR) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary endpoint was a composite of any device-related complications and inappropriate shocks. We identified a total of five studies including 236 patients (Group S-ICD: 76 patients; Group TV-ICD: 160 patients) with a mean follow-up time of 54.2 ± 24.9 months. S-ICD implantation contributed to a significant reduction in the risk of the primary endpoint of any device-related complications and inappropriate shocks (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05-0.73; p = .02). S-ICD was also associated with a significantly lower incidence of inappropriate shocks (OR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.11-0.74; p = .01) and lead-related complications (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05-0.66; p = .01). A trend toward a higher risk of pocket complications (OR: 5.91; 95% CI: 0.98-35.63; p = .05) was recorded in patients with S-ICD. Children and young adults undergoing S-ICD implantation may have a lower risk of a composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks, compared to TV-ICD patients.
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1409-1414Informations de copyright
© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Bharucha T, Lee KJ, Daubeney PEF, et al. Sudden death in childhood cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:2302-2310. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.03.552
Tarantino N, Della Rocca D, De Leon De La Cruz N, et al. Catheter ablation of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias in athletes. Medicina. 2021;57:205. doi:10.3390/medicina57030205
Dechert BE, Bradley DJ, Serwer GA, Dick Ii M, Lapage MJ. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator outcomes in pediatric and congenital heart disease: time to system revision: iCD SYSTEM REVISION IN PEDIATRICS. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2016;39:703-708. doi:10.1111/pace.12878
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:2700. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:5928. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928
Griksaitis MJ, Rosengarten JA, Gnanapragasam JP, Haw MP, Morgan JM. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in paediatric practice: a single-centre UK experience with focus on subcutaneous defibrillation. Europace. 2013;15:523-530. doi:10.1093/europace/eus388
Lewandowski M, Syska P, Kowalik I. Children and young adults treated with transvenous and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a 22-year single-center experience and new perspectives. Kardiol Pol. 2020;78:869-874. doi:10.33963/KP.15469
Pettit SJ, McLean A, Colquhoun I, Connelly D, McLeod K. Clinical experience of subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators in children and teenagers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2013;36:1532-1538. doi:10.1111/pace.12233
Quast ABE, Brouwer TF, Kooiman KM, et al. Comparison of complications and shocks in paediatric and young transvenous and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients. Neth Heart J. 2018;26:612-619. doi:10.1007/s12471-018-1186-1
Silvetti MS, Tamburri I, Campisi M, et al. ICD outcome in pediatric cardiomyopathies. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2022;9:33. doi:10.3390/jcdd9020033
Dechert BE, Bradley DJ, Serwer GA, Lapage MJ. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator outcomes in pediatric and congenital heart disease: time to system revision. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2016;39:703-708. doi:10.1111/pace.12878
DeWitt ES, Triedman JK, Cecchin F, et al. Time dependence of risks and benefits in pediatric primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2014;7:1057-1063. doi:10.1161/CIRCEP.114.001569
Silvetti MS, Pazzano V, Verticelli L, et al. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: is it ready for use in children and young adults? A single-centre study. Europace. 2018;20:1966-1973. doi:10.1093/europace/euy139
Gold MR, Theuns DA, Knight BP, et al. Head-to-head comparison of arrhythmia discrimination performance of subcutaneous and transvenous ICD arrhythmia detection algorithms: the START Study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2012;23:359-366. doi:10.1111/j.1540-8167.2011.02199.x