Arrhythmias & electrophysiologyRandomised controlled trial

Device-Related Complications in Transvenous Versus Subcutaneous Defibrillator Therapy During Long-Term Follow-Up: The PRAETORIAN-XL Trial

CirculationPublished

  • Randomised controlled trial (long-term follow-up extension of the PRAETORIAN trial)
  • multicentre
  • superiority
  • modified intention-to-treat
  • as-treated analysis

Authors' conclusion

The PRAETORIAN-XL trial demonstrated that there was no significant difference between the S-ICD and TV-ICD in all device-related complications during long-term follow-up. However, the TV-ICD carries a higher risk of major and lead-related complications compared with S-ICD therapy.

Study context

Population
Patients with a class I or IIa indication for ICD therapy without need for pacing, 39 centres in the US and Europe, 2011–2017
Participants
426 vs 423
Comparison
Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) vs transvenous ICD (TV-ICD)
  • S-ICDn = 426
  • TV-ICDn = 423reference
Primary endpoint
Composite of all device-related complications
Follow-up
Median 87.5 months

Primary result

As reported in the abstract

All device-related complications (major and minor combined)

All device-related complications not significantly different

subdistribution HR 0.73 (0.48-1.12); P=0.15 (95% CI)

Further findings

OutcomeHR (95% CI)P value
All device-related complications, as-treated analysis · significantly more complications with TV-ICD · as-treated · Cox model, device type time-dependent0.64 (0.41–0.99)P = 0.047

Major complications; lead-related complications

Major complications more often with TV-ICD
P = 0.03
Lead-related complications more often with TV-ICD
P < 0.001

Original publication

Device-Related Complications in Transvenous Versus Subcutaneous Defibrillator Therapy During Long-Term Follow-Up: The PRAETORIAN-XL Trial. Circulation. Published 25 April 2025. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.125.074576

Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it