Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS AND RESULTS: 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%. CONCLUSIONS: 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.