JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2022 Oct 21:S2405-500X(22)00846-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2022.09.020. Online ahead of print.
BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence guiding the selection between subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) at risk for sudden death.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare clinical and quality-of-life outcomes between transvenous and subcutaneous ICDs among patients with ARVC.
METHODS: Patients with a subcutaneous ICD (n = 57) were matched to patients with a transvenous ICD (n = 88) based on sex, proband status, primary prevention or secondary prevention, monomorphic ventricular tachycardia before implantation, and year of implantation. Appropriate therapy for ventricular arrhythmia, inappropriate shocks, and complications were compared. Quality-of-life surveys were conducted annually.
RESULTS: The matched cohort (median age of 35 years, 43% men, 78% proband, and 37% secondary prevention device) were prospectively followed for 5.1 ± 2.5 years. No significant difference was observed in the rate of appropriate ICD shocks. The subcutaneous group had more inappropriate shocks (23% vs 10%) and fewer procedure-related complications (4% vs 14%) than the transvenous group (P < 0.05). The association between ICD type and the composite of inappropriate shock and complication was not statistically significant (subcutaneous vs transvenous adjusted HR: 1.43; 95% CI: 0.72-2.84). A subcutaneous ICD was associated with more body image concerns and range of motion than a transvenous ICD (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ARVC receiving an ICD, the risk of inappropriate shocks from a subcutaneous ICD should be balanced against the significant vascular complication risk from a transvenous ICD. Patients with a subcutaneous ICD had more concerns for body image and range of motion.