Perioperative Safety and Early Patient and Device Outcomes Among Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantations : A Randomized, Multicenter Trial
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Background: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) improve survival in patients at risk for cardiac arrest, but are associated with intravascular lead-related complications. The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), with no intravascular components, was developed to minimize lead-related complications.
Objective: To assess key ICD performance measures related to delivery of ICD therapy, including inappropriate ICD shocks (delivered in absence of life-threatening arrhythmia) and failed ICD shocks (which did not terminate ventricular arrhythmia).
Design: Randomized, multicenter trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02881255).
Setting: The ATLAS trial.
Patients: 544 eligible patients (141 female) with a primary or secondary prevention indication for an ICD who were younger than age 60 years, had a cardiogenetic phenotype, or had prespecified risk factors for lead complications were electrocardiographically screened and 503 randomly assigned to S-ICD (251 patients) or transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) (252 patients). Mean follow-up was 2.5 years (SD, 1.1). Mean age was 49.0 years (SD, 11.5).
Measurements: The primary outcome was perioperative major lead-related complications.
Results: There was a statistically significant reduction in perioperative, lead-related complications, which occurred in 1 patient (0.4%) with an S-ICD and in 12 patients (4.8%) with TV-ICD (-4.4%; 95% CI, -6.9 to -1.9; = 0.001). There was a trend for more inappropriate shocks with the S-ICD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.37; 95% CI, 0.98 to 5.77), but no increase in failed appropriate ICD shocks (HR, 0.61 (0.15 to 2.57). Patients in the S-ICD group had more ICD site pain, measured on a 10-point numeric rating scale, on the day of implant (4.2 ± 2.8 vs. 2.9 ± 2.2; < 0.001) and 1 month later (1.3 ± 1.8 vs. 0.9 ± 1.5; = 0.035).
Limitation: At present, the ATLAS trial is underpowered to detect differences in clinical shock outcomes; however, extended follow-up is ongoing.
Conclusion: The S-ICD reduces perioperative, lead-related complications without significantly compromising the effectiveness of ICD shocks, but with more early postoperative pain and a trend for more inappropriate shocks.
Primary Funding Source: Boston Scientific.
Ziacchi M, Ottaviano L, Checchi L, Viani S, Nigro G, Bianchi V Europace. 2025; 27(2).
PMID: 39834232 PMC: 11822678. DOI: 10.1093/europace/euaf011.
Pepplinkhuizen S, Kors N, de Veld J, Dijkshoorn L, Bijsterveld N, de Weger A J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2025; .
PMID: 39820953 DOI: 10.1007/s10840-024-01973-x.
Roseboom E, Smit M, Groenveld H, Rienstra M, Maass A Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024; 25(11):403.
PMID: 39618862 PMC: 11607494. DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2511403.
Bisignani A, De Bonis S, Palmisano P, Bianchi V, Pecora D, Tola G Heart Rhythm O2. 2024; 5(7):474-478.
PMID: 39119026 PMC: 11305873. DOI: 10.1016/j.hroo.2024.05.009.
S-ICD Implantation "Tips and Tricks".
Budrejko S, Kempa M, Przybylski A Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024; 24(7):195.
PMID: 39077023 PMC: 11266475. DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2407195.