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.

Trends in adoption of extravascular cardiac implantable electronic devices: the Dutch cohort

Performance and Safety of the Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Through Long-Term Follow-Up: Final Results From the Pivotal Study

The development of the extravascular defibrillator with substernal lead placement: A new Frontier for device-based treatment of sudden cardiac arrest

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

Real‐world data of patients affected by advanced heart failure treated with implantable cardioverter defibrillator and left ventricular assist device: Results of a multicenter observational study

Comprehensive analysis of substernal lead removal: experience from EV ICD Pilot, Pivotal, and Continued Access Studies

Perioperative Safety and Early Patient and Device Outcomes Among Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantations : A Randomized, Multicenter Trial

Favorable Trend of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Service Life in a Large Single-Nation Population: Insights From 10-Year Analysis of the Italian Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Registry.

Dutch outcome in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy (DO-IT): registry design and baseline characteristics of a prospective observational cohort study to predict appropriate indication for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation Outcomes In Patients With Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillators: A Case Series

Contemporary trends of leadless pacemaker implantation in the United States

Infection management in the extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator: experience from the EV ICD Pivotal study

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator use in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy in North America and Europe

Occurrence of premature battery depletion in a large multicentre registry of subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator patients

Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Sensing and Detection in a Large Global Population

The SIDECAR project: S-IcD registry in European paediatriC and young Adult patients with congenital heaRt defects

First implantable cardiac defibrillator insertions in New South Wales, 2005–2020: an analysis of linked administrative data

Left ventricular assist device in the presence of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Data from a multicenter experience

Etiologies and predictors for cardiac implantable electronic device implantation in young patients hospitalized for complete atrioventricular block

Cardiac implantable electronic devices in adults with tetralogy of Fallot

Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients Without Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators