Bradycardia in Patients with Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillators-An Overestimated Problem? Experience from a...

The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) has developed as a valuable alternative to transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) systems. However there are certain peculiarities which are immanent to the S-ICD and may limit its use. Besides oversensing the main issue is the missing option for antibradycardia pacing. To evaluate the actual need for pacing during follow-up and changes to transvenous ICD we analyzed our large tertiary centre registry and compared it with data from other large cohorts and trials.

We found out that in the 398 patients from our centre, there was a need for changing to a transvenous ICD in only 2 patients (0.5%) during a follow-up duration of almost 3 years. This rate was comparable to data obtained from other large data sets so that in the pooled analysis of almost 4000 patients the rate of bradycardia-associated complications was only 0.3%.

The use of the S-ICD is safe in a variety of heart diseases and the need for antibradycardia stimulation is a very rare complication throughout many different large studies. Clinicians may take these results into account when opting for a certain ICD system and the S-ICD may be chosen more often also in elderly patients, in whom the risk for bradycardia is deemed higher.