Abstract:Background Few data are available about patients implanted with an implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). In particular, it is unclear if these patients have a higher risk of appropriate device therapy than patients implanted for primary and other secondary prevention. Purpose To assess if appropriate device interventions (ATP/shocks) are higher in patients implanted after OHCA compared to patients implanted for primary and secondary prevention other than OHCA. To verify also if mortality, implantation-related complications (pneumothorax, hemothorax, hematoma, cardiac tamponade), device-related complications (lead displacement and fracture, infections) and inappropriate shocks/ATP are higher in OHCA patients compared to other patients. Methods This is a retrospective multicenter international study. All the patients implanted with an ICD between January 2015 and December 2016 in the participating centers were included. Follow-up was considered concluded in case of death or at the last follow-up available until December 2023. Patients were divided according to ICD implantation indication (secondary prevention after OHCA, other secondary prevention, primary prevention). Results 1386 patients (79% males; median age 67, IQR 59-74) from 15 centers were included with a median follow-up of 83 months: 111 patients in OHCA group, 134 in other secondary prevention group and 1141 in primary prevention group. Considering the first appropriate intervention, a significant difference among the three groups was observed (Fig.1A) and, at post-hoc comparison, the OHCA group was at higher risk than primary prevention (HR 1.51, 95%CI 1.06-2.17, p=0.02), but was at similar risk than other secondary prevention (HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.51-1.23, p=0.3). This was confirmed also after correction for age, gender, history of atrial fibrillation, aetiology and multi-comorbidity (Fig.2A). However, considering the number of appropriate interventions during follow-up, the risk of OHCA group was lower than other secondary prevention (IRR 0.28, 95%CI 0.11-0.68, p<0.01) and similar to primary prevention (IRR 0.97, 95%CI 0.47-1.96, p=0.93), also after correction for the other predictors (Fig.2B). The three groups showed no differences in survival (Fig.1B), implantation-related complication, device-related complications (Fig.1C) and inappropriate shocks/ATP. Conclusion Patients implanted with an ICD after an OHCA have a risk similar to those implanted for other secondary prevention, when considering the first appropriate intervention, but a risk similar to those implanted for primary prevention when considering the number of appropriate interventions during follow-up. Our study confirms that OHCA patients represents a peculiar population with the same chance of survival and rate of complications compared to primary and other secondary prevention patients suggesting the need of more studies to improve their long-term treatment.Figure 1 (Panel A, B and C)Figure 2 (Panel A and B)

Cardiac implantable electronic devices in adults with tetralogy of Fallot

Age-Stratified Clinical Outcome in Patients with Known Heart Failure Who Receive Pacemaker, Resynchronization Therapy, or Defibrillator Implants

Outcomes and complications of transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator systems in the pediatric population: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Time dependence of risks and benefits in pediatric primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy

Risk of Appropriate Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapies and Sudden Cardiac Death in Patients With Heart Failure With Improved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Factors associated with cardiac implantable electronic device‐related infections, New South Wales, 2016–21: a retrospective cohort study

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

Association of device detected atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmia with adverse events in patients with an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator

Implantable Cardiac Devices in Patients with Brady- and Tachy-Arrhythmias: An Update of the Literature

Risk Factors Associated with Higher Mortality in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection

Risk for appropriate ICD intervention and complications in patients implanted after an out-hospital cardiac arrest compared to patients implanted for primary and other secondary prevention indication

Cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections due to enterococcal species: Clinical features, management, and outcomes

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

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Among Older Survivors of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in paediatric patients for primary vs. secondary prevention

Use of class IC antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with structural heart disease and implantable cardioverter defibrillator

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

Risk factors associated with clinically relevant pericardial effusion after primary cardiac implantable electronic device implantation

Single-Chamber and Dual-Chamber Pacemaker Devices in Adults with Moderate and Complex Congenital Heart Disease: A Single Tertiary Referral Center Experience

Implantation of cardiac electronic devices in active COVID-19 patients: Results from an international survey

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Tachycardia Therapies: Past, Present and Future Directions