Subcutaneous versus transvenous cardioverter-defibrillators: 6-month follow-up

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators versus transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators during 6-month follow-up.Methods: The prospective research successively included 95 patients with indications for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. The patients were divided into 2 groups: group 1 — 52 patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, group 2 — 43 patients with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. The patients were followed up for 6 months. All episodes of applied shock therapy, complications, patients changes in the condition and quality of life were analyzed.Results: The groups were initially comparable in terms of gender, age, etiology of the disease, and severity of the condition. Male patients prevailed (subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators — 90.3%, transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators — 93.0%), the mean age for subcutaneous devices was 56 [49;62] years and 60 [54;65] years for transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. All patients had chronic heart failure. The median LV EF for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was 29% [26;32] and 30% [27;32], respectively, EDV — 220 mL [187;278] and 202 mL [186;248], ESV — 151 mL [126;188] and 145 mL [122;184]. The number of complications recorded during the 6-month follow-up was slightly higher in patients who were implanted with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators — 7.6%, transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators — 2.3%, p = 0.249). The incidence of inadequate shocks in the groups was comparable (7.7% for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, 6.9% for transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, p = 0.882). The percentage of using adequate shock therapy was higher in the transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator group, 18.6% versus 5.7% in the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator group (p = 0.051). Implantation of the devices (both subcutaneous and transvenous) improved quality of life according to the results of questionnaires (Minnesota and EQ-5D questionnaires) before implantation and after 6 months of follow-up (p < 0.001 in both groups).Conclusion: This research demonstrates comparable results for the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators compared with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in patients with the need for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death within 6 months. Received 6 October 2022. Revised 28 February 2023. Accepted 1 March 2023. Funding: The study did not have sponsorship. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Contribution of the authorsConception and study design: A.V. Vereshchagina, T.M. Uskach, O.V. SapelnikovData collection and analysis: A.V. Vereshchagina, V.A. Amanatova, I.R. GrishinStatistical analysis: A.V. Vereshchagina, V.A. AmanatovaDrafting the article: A.V. Vereshchagina, T.M. UskachCritical revision of the article: A.V. Vereshchagina, T.M. Uskach, O.V. SapelnikovFinal approval of the version to be published: A.V. Vereshchagina, T.M. Uskach, O.V. Sapelnikov, V.A. Amanatova, I.R. Grishin