Efficacy and Safety of Appropriate Shocks and Antitachycardia Pacing in Transvenous and Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillators: Analysis of All Appropriate Therapy in the PRAETORIAN Trial.

BACKGROUND: The PRAETORIAN trial (A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Subcutaneous and Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy) showed noninferiority of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) compared with transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) with regard to inappropriate shocks and complications. In contrast to TV-ICD, S-ICD cannot provide antitachycardia pacing for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates appropriate therapy and whether antitachycardia pacing reduces the number of appropriate shocks. METHODS: The PRAETORIAN trial was an international, investigator-initiated randomized trial that included patients with an indication for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Patients with previous ventricular tachycardia <170 bpm or refractory recurrent monomorphic ventricular tachycardia were excluded. In 39 centers, 849 patients were randomized to receive an S-ICD (n=426) or TV-ICD (n=423) and were followed for a median of 49.1 months. ICD programming was mandated by protocol. Appropriate ICD therapy was defined as therapy for ventricular arrhythmias. Arrhythmias were classified as discrete episodes and storm episodes (≥3 episodes within 24 hours). Analyses were performed in the modified intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: In the S-ICD group, 86 of 426 patients received appropriate therapy, versus 78 of 423 patients in the TV-ICD group, during a median follow-up of 52 months (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimates 19.4% and 17.5%; P=0.45). In the S-ICD group, 83 patients received at least 1 shock, versus 57 patients in the TV-ICD group (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimates 19.2% and 11.5%; P=0.02). Patients in the S-ICD group had a total of 254 shocks, compared with 228 shocks in the TV-ICD group (P=0.68). First shock efficacy was 93.8% in the S-ICD group and 91.6% in the TV-ICD group (P=0.40). The first antitachycardia pacing attempt successfully terminated 46% of all monomorphic ventricular tachycardias, but accelerated the arrhythmia in 9.4%. Ten patients with S-ICD experienced 13 electrical storms, versus 18 patients with TV-ICD with 19 electrical storms. Patients with appropriate therapy had an almost 2-fold increased relative risk of electrical storms in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group (P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, no difference was observed in shock efficacy of S-ICD compared with TV-ICD. Although patients in the S-ICD group were more likely to receive an ICD shock, the total number of appropriate shocks was not different between the 2 groups. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01296022

Device-related complications in the subcutaneous and transvenous ICD: a secondary analysis of the PRAETORIAN trial.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is developed to overcome lead-related complications and systemic infections, inherent to transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) therapy. The PRAETORIAN trial demonstrated that the S-ICD is non-inferior to the TV-ICD with regard to the combined primary endpoint of inappropriate shocks and complications. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates all complications in the PRAETORIAN trial. METHODS: The PRAETORIAN trial is an international, multicenter, randomised trial in which 849 patients with an indication for ICD therapy were randomised to receive an SICD (N = 426) or TV-ICD (N = 423) and followed for a median of 49 months. Endpoints were device-related complications, lead-related complications, systemic infections and the need for invasive interventions. RESULTS: Thirty-six device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the S-ICD group of which bleedings were the most frequent. In the TV-ICD group 49 complications occurred in 44 patients of which lead-dysfunction was most frequent (HR 0.69; P =0.11). In both groups half of all complications were within 30 days after implantation. Lead-related complications and systemic infections occurred significantly less in the S-ICD group compared to the TV-ICD group (P <0.001, P =0.03 respectively). Significantly more complications required invasive interventions in the TV-ICD group compared to the S-ICD group (8.3% vs. 4.3%, HR 0.59; P =0.047). CONCLUSIONS: This secondary analysis shows that, lead-related complications and systemic infections are more prevalent in the TV-ICD group compared to the S-ICD group. In addition, complications in the TV-ICD group were more severe as they required significantly more invasive interventions. This data contributes to shared decision making in clinical practice

1-Year Outcomes of Delayed Versus Immediate Intervention in Patients With Transient ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Objectives The aim of the present study was to determine the effect of a delayed versus an immediate invasive approach on final infarct size and clinical outcome up to 1 year. Background Up to 24% of patients with acute coronary syndromes present with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) but show complete resolution of ST-segment elevation and symptoms before revascularization. Current guidelines do not clearly state whether these patients with transient STEMI should be treated with a STEMI-like or non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome–like intervention strategy. Methods In this multicenter trial, 142 patients with transient STEMI were randomized 1:1 to either delayed or immediate coronary intervention. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed at 4 days and at 4-month follow-up to assess infarct size and myocardial function. Clinical follow-up was performed at 4 and 12 months. Results In the delayed (22.7 h) and the immediate (0.4 h) invasive groups, final infarct size as a percentage of the left ventricle was very small (0.4% [interquartile range: 0.0% to 2.5%] vs. 0.4% [interquartile range: 0.0% to 3.5%]; p = 0.79), and left ventricular function was good (mean ejection fraction 59.3 ± 6.5% vs. 59.9 ± 5.4%; p = 0.63). In addition, the overall occurrence of major adverse cardiac events, consisting of death, recurrent infarction, and target lesion revascularization, up to 1 year was low and not different between both groups (5.7% vs. 4.4%, respectively; p = 1.00). Conclusions At follow-up, patients with transient STEMI have limited infarction and well-preserved myocardial function in general, and delayed or immediate revascularization has no effect on functional outcome and clinical events up to 1 year