You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.


  • Int. J. Cardiol. · Feb 2017

    Comparative Study

    A propensity matched case-control study comparing efficacy, safety and costs of the subcutaneous vs. transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

    • S Honarbakhsh, R Providencia, N Srinivasan, S Ahsan, M Lowe, E Rowland, R J Hunter, M Finlay, O Segal, M J Earley, A Chow, R J Schilling, and P D Lambiase.
    • Department of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Barts Heart Centre, St Bartholomew's Hospital, West Smithfield, London EC1A 7BE, UK.
    • Int. J. Cardiol. 2017 Feb 1; 228: 280-285.

    BackgroundSubcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICD) have become more widely available. However, comparisons with conventional transvenous ICDs (TV-ICD) are scarce.MethodsWe conducted a propensity matched case-control study including all patients that underwent S-ICD implantation over a five-year period in a single tertiary centre. Controls consisted of all TV-ICD implant patients over a contemporary time period excluding those with pacing indication, biventricular pacemakers and those with sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia requiring anti-tachycardia pacing. Data was collected on device-related complications and mortality rates. A cost efficacy analysis was performed.ResultsSixty-nine S-ICD cases were propensity matched to 69 TV-ICD controls. During a mean follow-up of 31±19 (S-ICD) and 32±21months (TV-ICD; p=0.88) there was a higher rate of device-related complications in the TV-ICD group predominantly accounted for by lead failures (n=20, 29% vs. n=6, 9%; p=0.004). The total mean cost for each group, including the complication-related costs was £9967±4511 ($13,639±6173) and £12,601±1786 ($17,243±2444) in the TV-ICD and S-ICD groups respectively (p=0.0001). Even though more expensive S-ICD was associated with a relative risk reduction of device-related complication of 70% with a HR of 0.30 (95%CI 0.12-0.76; p=0.01) compared to TV-ICDs.ConclusionsTV-ICDs are associated with increased device-related complication rates compared to a propensity matched S-ICD group during a similar follow-up period. Despite the existing significant difference in unit cost of the S-ICD, overall S-ICD costs may be mitigated versus TV-ICDs over a longer follow-up period.Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.