Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Long-term outcomes of subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator use among patients on maintenance dialysis
Main finding · DeathResult — go to the resultHazard ratio 1.12 95% CI 0.96–1.30Authors' conclusion
In this representative longitudinal cohort study of dialysis patients, compared with TV-ICD, S-ICD was not associated with decreased risks of death, hospitalization, device complications, or dialysis access interventions.
Study context
- Population
- Fee-For-Service Medicare beneficiary dialysis patients receiving an ICD, National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry
- Participants
- 529 vs 842
- Exposure
- S-ICD vs single-chamber TV-ICD
- S-ICDn = 529
- TV-ICDn = 842reference
- Outcome
- Death
Methodological detailsstabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting
- Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Hazard ratio
1.12
95% CI 0.96–1.30
S-ICDvs TV-ICD
HR 1.12 (95% CI 0.96–1.30)
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
| Outcome | HR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Hospital admission | 1.01 (0.88–1.16) | |
| Subsequent dialysis access interventions | 1.12 (0.86–1.46) | |
| 0.512Hazard ratio (log scale) |
Safety
| Outcome | HR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Bacteremia or sepsis | 1.01 (0.80–1.26) | |
| Device reoperation | 1.06 (0.59–1.89) | |
| 0.512Hazard ratio (log scale) |
Original publication
Long-term outcomes of subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator use among patients on maintenance dialysis. Heart Rhythm. Published 28 November 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →