Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an alternative to a transvenous implantable cardio defibrillator (TV-ICD). An S-ICD reduces the risk of transvenous lead placement. However, further research is required to determine how S-ICDs affect patients with hypertrophic cardiom...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy 2024-06, Vol.14 (3), p.318-327
Hauptverfasser: da Silva Menezes Júnior, Antônio, Oliveira, Izadora Caiado, de Sousa, André Maroccolo, Paro Piai, Ricardo Figueiredo, Oliveira, Vinícius Martins Rodrigues
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:A subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an alternative to a transvenous implantable cardio defibrillator (TV-ICD). An S-ICD reduces the risk of transvenous lead placement. However, further research is required to determine how S-ICDs affect patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). In this study, we investigated the comparative efficacy and safety of S-ICDs versus TV-ICDs in HCM. On December 6 , 2023, we performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing S-ICDs with TV-ICDs in HCM patients published from 2004 until 2023. No language restrictions were applied. The primary outcome was appropriate shocks (AS), with inappropriate shocks (IAS), and device-related complications considered as secondary outcomes. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random effects model. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias of the studies. The search yielded 1,114 records. Seven studies comprising 4,347 HCM patients were included, of whom 3,325 (76.0%) had TV-ICDs, and 1,022 (22.6%) had S-ICDs. There were 2,564 males (58.9%). The age range was from 39.1 to 49.4 years. Compared with the TV-ICD group, the S-ICD cohort had a significantly lower incidence of device-related complications (OR 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30-0.89; P=0.02; I =4%). Contrastingly, there were no statistically significant differences in the occurrences of AS (OR 0.49; 95% CI: 0.22-1.08; P=0.08; I =75%) and IAS (OR 1.03; 95% CI: 0.57-1.84; P=0.93; I =65%) between the two device modalities. In the analysis of the overall risk of bias in the studies, we found 42% of them with several, 28% with moderate, and 14% with low risk of bias. In HCM patients, S-ICDs were associated with a lower incidence of device-associated problems than TV-ICDs. AS and IAS incidence rates were similar between groups. These findings may assist clinicians in determining the most suitable device for treating patients with HCM.
ISSN:2223-3652
2223-3660
DOI:10.21037/cdt-24-15