Abstract:Background: The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD™) is an important advance in device therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Although current guidelines recommend S-ICD™ use, long-term data are still limited, especially in subgroups. Among several cardiac diseases that prone to SCD, coronary artery disease (CAD) carries several peculiarities that may hamper S-ICD™ therapy in this cohort. CAD can lead to an ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) with a reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and bundle branch blocks, which can be difficult for ICD sensing and discrimination of arrhythmia. CAD is mainly driven by risk factors such as diabetes mellitus, which put these patients at an elevated risk for infectious complications of cardiac devices. Furthermore, in ICM myocardial scars are frequent and are a potential substrate for ventricular tachycardia, which may be accessible for antitachycardia pacing. At the moment, it remains unclear if there is a value of S-ICD™ therapy in this subgroup. Therefore, this study analysed patients with CAD. Materials and methods: All S-ICD™ patients with CAD as the main indication for ICD implantation (n = 45 patients) in our large-scaled single-center S-ICD™ registry (n = 249 patients) were included in this study. Baseline characteristics, appropriate and inappropriate shocks, and complications were documented in a mean follow-up of 22.5 ± 8.3 months. Results: Primary prevention of SCD was the indication for implantation of an S-ICD™ in 28 patients (62%). Of all 45 patients with an overall mean age of 58.1 ± 11.4 years, 40 were male (88%). The mean LVEF was 37.7 ± 12.6%. Three episodes of ventricular arrhythmia (one monomorphic, one polymorphic, one ventricular fibrillation) were adequately terminated in three patients (7%). In only one patient, oversensing resulting in an inappropriate shock was observed, which could be managed by changing the sensing vector. 15 of the examined 45 patients previously had a transvenous ICD, which was explanted due to system-related infections. In only two patients, S-ICD™ was changed to transvenous ICD because of the need of antibradycardia stimulation. There were no S-ICD™ system-related infections. Conclusion: The S-ICD™ seems to be a valuable option for the prevention of SCD in CAD patients. Patients with systemic infections of a transvenous ICD and, therefore, a need for an alternative might benefit from the absence of intracardiac leads as the S-ICD™ is safe and works flawlessly in these patients. Inadequate shock delivery was very rare, while every episode of ventricular arrhythmia was terminated by the first shock.

A single-center analysis of the safety and efficiency of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation technique

Application of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator in China

Application of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in 12 Patients:The Early Experience from Nine Centers

Real-world Evidence for the Use of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter–defibrillators in China: A Single-Center Experience

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death: a single center experience

Performance of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (S-ICD) in Chinese Population with Primary Prevention Indications: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study

Survey of the Application and Cognition of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

The feasibility of in-vitro testing in ICD implantation procedure

Comparative outcomes of subcutaneous and transvenous cardioverter-defibrillators.

Feasibility of entirely subcutaneous ICD™ systems in patients with coronary artery disease

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Sudden Cardiac Death Prevention in China: A Regional Analysis from the Improve SCA Clinical Trial

Clinical Application of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in 20 Hospitals in China

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in sudden cardiac death

Ten years of subcutaneous defibrillator therapy: Consolidated clinical evidence and future perspectives

Shock Without Wires: A Look at Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Compared to Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator for Ventricular Arrhythmias

Clinical application of implantable cardioverter defibillators and follow-up of patients received cardioverter defibrillators implantation

[The Prospective Study on the Prognosis in Patients with Ventricular Tachycardia or Fibrillation Treated with Implantable Automatic Cardioverter Defibrillator].

Value of implantable cardioverter defibrillator for sudden cardiac death

Clinical Experience of Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

Indications of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy

Subcutaneous Implantable-Defibrillator is Better to Be a “collaborator” Rather Than a “Replacement”