Clinical course of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients implanted with a transvenous or a subcutaneous defibrillator

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is a life-saving therapy in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) at risk of sudden cardiac death. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator complications are of concern. The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) does not use transvenous leads and is expected to reduce complications. However, it does not provide bradycardia and anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP). The aim of this study was to compare appropriate and inappropriate ICD interventions, complications, disease-related adverse events and mortality between HCM patients implanted with a S- or transvenous (TV)-ICD. Methods and results Consecutive HCM patients implanted with a S- (n = 216) or TV-ICD (n = 211) were enrolled. Propensity-adjusted cumulative Kaplan–Meier curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazard ratios were used to compare 5-year event-free survival and the risk of events. The S-ICD patients had lower 5-year risk of appropriate (HR: 0.32; 95%CI: 0.15–0.65P; = 0.002) and inappropriate (HR: 0.44; 95%CI: 0.20–0.95;P = 0.038) ICD interventions, driven by a high incidence of ATP therapy in the TV- ICD group. The S- and TV-ICD patients experienced similar 5-year rate of device-related complications, albeit the risk of major lead-related complications was lower in S-ICD patients (HR: 0.17; 95%CI: 0.038–0.79P; = 0.023). The TV- and S-ICD patients displayed similar risk of disease-related complications (HR: 0.64; 95%CI: 0.27–1.52;P = 0.309) and mortality (HR: 0.74; 95%CI: 0.29–1.87; P = 0.521). Conclusion Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients implanted with a S-ICD had lower 5-year risk of appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies as well as of major lead-related complications as compared to those implanted with a TV-ICD. Long-term comparative follow-up studies will clarify whether the lower incidence of major lead-related complications will translate into a morbidity or survival benefit.