Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices -> Monitoring & Outcomes: -> Quality Measures & Complications D-PO05 - Poster Session V (ID 39) Poster

D-PO05-107 - Quality Of Life: Transvenous Versus Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillators (ID 553)


Background: Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICD) offer potential advantages over transvenous cardioverter-defibrillators (TV-ICD) such as less invasive procedure and no need for venous access. However, S-ICDs are larger than TV-ICDs, have shorter battery life, and do not provide pacing. Despite these differences, there is paucity of data regarding Quality of Life (QoL) in patients (pts) with S-ICDs compared to TV-ICDs.
Objective: To compare QoL in pts with S-ICDs and TV-ICDs.
Methods: We conducted a multi-center prospective study enrolling pts with S-ICDs and TV-ICDs at time of implant between 2014 and 2019. Pts completed QoL questionnaires at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months (mos) post implant. QoL questionnaires included Florida Shock Anxiety Scale (FSAS) to assess anxiety related to ICD shocks, Florida Patient Acceptance Scale (FPAS) to assess device acceptance, and Short Form-12 (SF-12), to assess overall perceived physical and mental health.
Results: 52 pts with S-ICDs and 16 pts with TV-ICDs were enrolled. Overall questionnaire response rate was 39.2%. Pts with TV-ICDs had significantly higher device acceptance and better physical QoL at baseline compared to S-ICD. However, the 2 groups showed no significant differences with respect to shock anxiety, device acceptance or overall perceived mental and physical health at 3, 6 and 12 mos.
Conclusion: Although at baseline TV-ICD pts had higher acceptance and better physical QoL, possibly related to procedure, both have similar measures with respect to shock anxiety, device acceptance and overall perceived health. Further research is needed to clarify pts perceptions regarding S-ICDs compared to TV-ICDs.