• Radoslaw Lenarczyk, Serge Boveda, Kristina H Haugaa, Tatjana S Potpara, Pawel Syska, Ewa Jedrzejczyk-Patej, Michel Chauvin, Nicolas Sadoul, and Nikolaos Dagres.
• Department of Cardiology, Congenital Heart Disease and Electrotherapy, Silesian Medical University, Silesian Centre for Heart Diseases, Silesian Medical University, 9 Curie-Sklodowskiej St., Zabrze, Poland.
• Europace. 2018 Jul 1; 20 (7): 1218-1224.

AbstractThe aim of this European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) prospective snapshot survey is to assess peri-procedural practices, implantation techniques, and short-term procedure-related complications associated with implantation of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) or transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD), across tertiary European electrophysiology centres. An internet-based electronic questionnaire concerning implantation settings, peri-procedural routines, techniques, personnel, complications, and patient outcomes was sent to the centres routinely implanting both TV-ICDs and S-ICDs. The centres were requested to prospectively include consecutive patients implanted with either TV-ICD or S-ICD during the 8-week enrolment period. Overall, 20 centres from 6 countries enrolled 429 consecutive patients. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (20%) compared with TV-ICD were implanted mainly under general anaesthesia (72% vs. 14%), in the surgical operation room settings (69% vs. 43%), with more frequent prophylactic antibiotic administration (82% vs. 91%), and post-implant defibrillation testing (85% vs. 7%, all P < 0.05). Feasibility (implantation duration of 45 min) and short-term complication rates (4%) were comparable for S-ICDs and TV-ICDs, but the spectrum of complications varied, despite different baseline characteristics of patients undergoing the S-ICD vs. TV-ICD implantation. This EHRA snapshot survey provides important insights into the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation routines and patient outcomes. Our study showed differences between the S-ICD and TV-ICD implantation routines with respect to implantation settings, peri-procedural management, and pre-defined procedural endpoints. However, the comparable duration of S-ICD or TV-ICD implantation and similar rates of peri-procedural complications indicate that both devices can be routinely used in clinical practice.

36 keywords...

hide…