Comparative Study between Subcutaneous and Endovascular Defibrillator Recipients Regarding Tolerance to the Implant Procedure and Perception of Quality of Life

Abstract Background The totally subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is a safe alternative to the conventional transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) system to prevent sudden death. Objective To compare the impact of the type of ICD system and surgical technique on patients’ quality of life, as well as the severity of discomfort and pain, between S-ICD and TV-ICD recipients. Methods Consecutively implanted patients with an S-ICD system were matched with patients with a TV-ICD system. In addition, patients undergoing S-ICD implantation after removal of a TV-ICD due to complications were included. Quality of life (measured with the 12-item short-form health survey) and severity of pain and discomfort were evaluated. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Results A total of 64 patients implanted with S-ICD or TV-ICD under local anesthesia and conscious sedation were analyzed. Patients with S-ICD and TV-ICD systems did not differ significantly in quality of life scores. S-ICD patients had a higher level of perioperative pain; no differences were found regarding severity of intraoperative pain. The magnitude of aesthetic discomfort and sleep disturbances did not differ between groups. An S-ICD was implanted in 7 additional patients after removal of a TV-ICD. All but one of these patients recommended the S-ICD system. Conclusions The type of ICD system and the surgical technique have negligible impact on patients’ quality of life. These results suggest that conscious sedation, provided by an experienced electrophysiology team, could be considered as an alternative to general anesthesia to manage patients undergoing S-ICD implantation.