Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices -> Tachycardia Devices: -> Indications
D-AB21 - Real World Outcomes of Patients with an ICD (ID 7)
Abstract
D-AB21-02 - Impact Of Age At Implant On Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator In A Large Cohort Of Patients With Long Follow Up (ID 788)
Abstract
Background: The Subcutaneous (S) Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) is an accepted alternative to Trans-Venous (TV) ICD. Early reports had a large number of young patients (pts). Long term, real-world experience in the elderly population needs further evaluation.
Objective: To report outcomes of SICD patients in different age groups in the multicenter SICD post-approval study (PAS).
Methods: Methods: Pts were prospectively enrolled in the SICD PAS and stratified based on age: young, age 15-34 (Y); adult, age 35-69 (A); and elderly, age 70-89 (E). Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes through 3 years for all pts were compared.
Results: Results: Clinical characteristics of the 1637 pts enrolled in the SICD PAS are shown in Table. Elderly pts were more likely to receive an SICD as replacement of TV-ICD (7.4%(Y) vs 12.3%(A) vs 15.1%(E)). Secondary prevention indication decreased with age (32.7%(Y) vs 22.2%(A) vs 20.5%(E)). Mortality rate was significantly higher in elderly at 24.0%, versus 7.4%(Y) and 13.2%(A) (log rank p<0.0001). The rate of complications did not differ significantly between groups (log rank p=0.1930), 8.1% (E) vs 12.3% (Y) and 11.3% (A). There were no differences in rates of appropriate (AS) and inappropriate shocks (IAS) between the three groups (overall log rank p=0.9593 and 0.9790, resp.), with rates of AS of 12.7%(Y) vs 13.0%(A) vs 13.8%(E), and rates of IAS of 7.8%(Y) vs 9.1%(A) vs 8.8%(E).
Conclusion: Conclusion: 1- Implant complications, AS and IAS are not different between age groups; 2-SICD for secondary prevention is more common in young pts.
Collapse
Objective: To report outcomes of SICD patients in different age groups in the multicenter SICD post-approval study (PAS).
Methods: Methods: Pts were prospectively enrolled in the SICD PAS and stratified based on age: young, age 15-34 (Y); adult, age 35-69 (A); and elderly, age 70-89 (E). Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes through 3 years for all pts were compared.
Results: Results: Clinical characteristics of the 1637 pts enrolled in the SICD PAS are shown in Table. Elderly pts were more likely to receive an SICD as replacement of TV-ICD (7.4%(Y) vs 12.3%(A) vs 15.1%(E)). Secondary prevention indication decreased with age (32.7%(Y) vs 22.2%(A) vs 20.5%(E)). Mortality rate was significantly higher in elderly at 24.0%, versus 7.4%(Y) and 13.2%(A) (log rank p<0.0001). The rate of complications did not differ significantly between groups (log rank p=0.1930), 8.1% (E) vs 12.3% (Y) and 11.3% (A). There were no differences in rates of appropriate (AS) and inappropriate shocks (IAS) between the three groups (overall log rank p=0.9593 and 0.9790, resp.), with rates of AS of 12.7%(Y) vs 13.0%(A) vs 13.8%(E), and rates of IAS of 7.8%(Y) vs 9.1%(A) vs 8.8%(E).
Conclusion: Conclusion: 1- Implant complications, AS and IAS are not different between age groups; 2-SICD for secondary prevention is more common in young pts.
