Rate and impact on patient outcome and healthcare utilization of complications requiring surgical revision: Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable defibrillator therapy

Introduction: Comparison data on management of device-related complications and their impact on patient outcome and healthcare utilization between subcutaneous implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (S-ICD) and transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) are lacking. We designed this prospective, multicentre, observational registry to compare the rate, nature, and impact of long-term device-related complications requiring surgical revision on patient outcome and healthcare utilization between patients undergoing S-ICD or TV-ICD implantation. Methods and Results: A total of 1099 consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD or TV-ICD implantation were enrolled. Propensity matching for baseline characteristics yielded 169 matched pairs. Rate, nature, management, and impact on patient outcome of device-related complications were analyzed and compared between two groups. During a mean follow-up of 30 months, device-related complications requiring surgical revision were observed in 20 patients: 3 in S-ICD group (1.8%) and 17 in TV-ICD group (10.1%; p =.002). Compared with TV-ICD patients, S-ICD patients showed a significantly lower risk of lead-related complications (0% vs. 5.9%; p =.002) and a similar risk of pocket-related complications (0.6 vs. 2.4; p =.215) and device infection (0.6% vs. 1.2%; p = 1.000). Complications observed in S-ICD patients resulted in a significantly lower number of complications-related rehospitalizations (median 0 vs. 1; p =.013) and additional hospital treatment days (1.0 ± 1.0 vs. 6.5 ± 4.4 days; p =.048) compared with TV-ICD patients. Conclusions: Compared with TV-ICD, S-ICD is associated with a lower risk of complications, mainly due to a lower risk of lead-related complications. The management of S-ICD complications requires fewer and shorter rehospitalizations.