Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 19, 2025

A New Single Chamber Implantable Defibrillator with Atrial Sensing: A Practical Demonstration of Sensing and Ease of Implantation
Published on: February 28, 2012
Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in Patients With Congenital Heart Disease
Victor Waldmann1, Christelle Marquié2, Francis Bessière3
1Université de Paris, INSERM, Paris Cardiovascular Research Centre, Paris, France; Adult Congenital Heart Disease Medico-Surgical Unit, European Georges Pompidou Hospital, Paris, France; Pediatric and Congenital Medico-Surgical Unit, Necker Hospital, Paris, France; Cardiac Electrophysiology Unit, European Georges Pompidou Hospital, Paris, France.
Background:
Very few data have been published on the use of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD).
Objectives:
The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes associated with S-ICDs in patients with CHD.
Methods:
This nationwide French cohort including all patients with an S-ICD was initiated in 2020 by the French Institute of Health and Medical Research. Characteristics at implantation and outcomes were analyzed in patients with CHD.
Results:
From October 12, 2012, to December 31, 2019, among 4,924 patients receiving an S-ICD implant in 150 centers, 101 (2.1%) had CHD. Tetralogy of Fallot, univentricular heart, and dextro-transposition of the great arteries represented almost one-half of the population. Patients with CHD were significantly younger (age 37.1 ± 15.4 years vs 50.1 ± 14.9 years; P < 0.001), more frequently female (37.6% vs 23.0%; P < 0.001), more likely to receive an S-ICD for secondary prevention (72.3% vs 35.9%; P < 0.001), and less likely to have severe systolic dysfunction of the systemic ventricle (28.1% vs 53.1%; P < 0.001). Over a mean follow-up period of 1.9 years, 16 (15.8%) patients with CHD received at least 1 appropriate shock, with all shocks successfully terminating the ventricular arrhythmia. The crude risk of appropriate S-ICD shock was twice as high in patients with CHD compared with non-CHD patients (annual incidences of 9.0% vs 4.4%; HR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.3-3.4); however, this association was no longer significant after propensity matching (especially considering S-ICD indication, P = 0.12). The burden of all complications (HR: 1.2; 95% CI: 0.7-2.1; P = 0.4) and inappropriate shocks (HR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.4-2.0; P = 0.9) was comparable in both groups.
Conclusions:
In this nationwide study, patients with CHD represented 2% of all S-ICD implantations. Our findings emphasize the effectiveness and safety of S-ICD in this particularly high-risk population. (S-ICD French Cohort Study [HONEST]; NCT05302115).
Related Concept Videos
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Heart Failure VI: Adjunct Therapies
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation III: AED Use
Cardiac Catheterization I: Pre-Procedure Overview
Dysrhythmias VI: Management of Dysrhythmias

