Heart failure & cardiomyopathies
Subcutaneous and Transvenous Defibrillators in Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy: A Comparison of Clinical and Quality-of-Life Outcomes
Authors' conclusion
Patients with a subcutaneous ICD had more concerns for body image and range of motion.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) at risk for sudden deathmatched cohort
- Participants
- 57 vs 88
- Exposure
- Subcutaneous ICD vs transvenous ICD
- Subcutaneousn = 57
- Transvenousn = 88reference
- Outcome
- Appropriate therapy for ventricular arrhythmia, inappropriate shocks and complications
- Follow-up
- 5.1 ± 2.5 years
Methodological detailsmatched (sex, proband status, primary or secondary prevention, prior monomorphic VT, implantation year), Prospectively followed 5.1 ± 2.5 years; QoL surveys annually
- Matched (sex, proband status, primary or secondary prevention, prior monomorphic VT, implantation year)
- Prospectively followed 5.1 ± 2.5 years; QoL surveys annually
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Appropriate ICD shocks
- No significant difference in rate of appropriate ICD shocks
- Matched cohort
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
QoL: body image concerns and range of motion
- More body image and range-of-motion concerns with subcutaneous ICD
- P < 0.05
Safety
Inappropriate shocks
P < 0.05
Procedure-related complications
P < 0.05
| Outcome | Adjusted HR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Composite of inappropriate shock and complication | 1.43 (0.72–2.84) | |
| 0.20.5125Adjusted hazard ratio (log scale) |
Original publication
Subcutaneous and Transvenous Defibrillators in Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy: A Comparison of Clinical and Quality-of-Life Outcomes. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. Published 31 October 2022. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →