Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Complications in Idiopathic Ventricular Fibrillation Patients
Authors' conclusion
VA recurrence occurs frequently, affecting nearly one-third of patients with IVF. Comparing S-ICD and TV-ICD, there were no significant differences in inappropriate ICD therapy. Lead complications were more prevalent with TV-ICD compared with S-ICD.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (IVF)subanalysis included 261 patients (implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation between 2010 and 2024)
- Participants
- 415 patients
- Exposure
- Subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) vs Transvenous ICD (TV-ICD)
Methodological detailsDutch IVF Registry
- Dutch IVF Registry
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Recurrent VA requiring ICD therapy
Patients with recurrent ventricular arrhythmia (VA) requiring ICD therapy
132
32%
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Safety
Inappropriate ICD therapy
Lead complications · more lead complications in TV-ICD
- Inappropriate ICD therapy: P = 0.976
- Lead complications: P < 0.001
Other device-related complications
- No significant differences between S-ICD and TV-ICD
- Consistent when corrected for different follow-up duration and age at index event
Original publication
Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Complications in Idiopathic Ventricular Fibrillation Patients. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. Published 2 April 2026. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it