Subcutaneous or Transvenous Defibrillator Therapy

Reinoud E Knops, et al.

Background: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was designed to avoid complications related to the transvenous ICD lead by using an entirely extrathoracic placement.Evidence comparing these systems has been based primarily on observational studies.

Methods: We conducted a noninferiority trial in which patients with an indication for an ICD but no indication for pacing were assigned to receive a subcutaneous ICD or transvenous ICD.The primary end point was the composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks; the noninferiority margin for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio (subcutaneous ICD vs.transvenous ICD) was 1.45.A superiority analysis was prespecified if noninferiority was established.Secondary end points included death and appropriate shocks.

Results: A total of 849 patients (426 in the subcutaneous ICD group and 423 in the transvenous ICD group) were included in the analyses.At a median follow-up of 49.1 months, a primary end-point event occurred in 68 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 68 patients in the transvenous ICD group (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimated cumulative incidence, 15.1%and 15.7%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.39; P = 0.01 for noninferiority; P = 0.95 for superiority).Device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 44 in the transvenous ICD group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.09); inappropriate shocks occurred in 41 and 29 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.89 to 2.30).Death occurred in 83 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 68 in the transvenous ICD group (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.70); appropriate shocks occurred in 83 and 57 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.08 to 2.12).

Conclusions: In patients with an indication for an ICD but no indication for pacing, the subcutaneous ICD was noninferior to the transvenous ICD with respect to device-related complications and inappropriate shocks.(Funded by Boston Scientific;PRAETORIAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01296022.).