98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background Optimal management of asymptomatic Brugada syndrome (BrS) with spontaneous type I electrocardiographic pattern is uncertain. Methods and Results We developed an individual-level simulation comprising 2 000 000 average-risk individuals with asymptomatic BrS and spontaneous type I electrocardiographic pattern. We compared (1) observation, (2) electrophysiologic study (EPS)-guided implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), and (3) upfront ICD, each using either subcutaneous or transvenous ICD, resulting in 6 strategies tested. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with cardiac deaths (arrest or procedural-related) as a secondary outcome. We varied BrS diagnosis age and underlying arrest rate. We assessed cost-effectiveness at $100 000/QALY. Compared with observation, EPS-guided subcutaneous ICD resulted in 0.35 QALY gain/individual and 4130 cardiac deaths avoided/100 000 individuals, and EPS-guided transvenous ICD resulted in 0.26 QALY gain and 3390 cardiac deaths avoided. Compared with observation, upfront ICD reduced cardiac deaths by a greater margin (subcutaneous ICD, 8950; transvenous ICD, 6050), but only subcutaneous ICD improved QALYs (subcutaneous ICD, 0.25 QALY gain; transvenous ICD, 0.01 QALY loss), and complications were higher. ICD-based strategies were more effective at younger ages and higher arrest rates (eg, using subcutaneous devices, upfront ICD was the most effective strategy at ages 20-39.4 years and arrest rates >1.37%/year; EPS-guided ICD was the most effective strategy at ages 39.5-51.3 years and arrest rates 0.47%-1.37%/year, and observation was the most effective strategy at ages >51.3 years and arrest rates <0.47%/year). EPS-guided subcutaneous ICD was cost-effective ($80 508/QALY). Conclusions Device-based approaches (with or without EPS risk stratification) can be more effective than observation among selected patients with asymptomatic BrS. BrS management should be tailored to patient characteristics.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8475040 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.021144 | DOI Listing |
Eur Heart J Case Rep
August 2025
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Oxford, Wellington Square, Oxford OX1 2JD, UK.
Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) prevent sudden cardiac death due to ventricular arrhythmia. A novel extravascular ICD (EV-ICD) system provides improved functionality over previous transvenous (TV-ICD) and subcutaneous (S-ICD) alternatives, particularly in younger patients. This includes limited bradycardia pacing, anti-tachycardia pacing therapy, and lower energy defibrillation, all within a smaller device profile compared to the S-ICD.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEuropace
August 2025
Department of Cardiology II - Electrophysiology, University Hospital Muenster.
Introduction: CIED patients are routinely advised against physical activity with a risk of collision because of expected damage to the implanted device. However, no data support this practice.
Methods: Sixteen CIED systems (6 pacemakers, 6 ICD, 4 CRT-D) from all manufacturers were implanted subcutaneously in a porcine thorax and increasing weights were dropped on the experimental setting.
JHLT Open
November 2025
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Background: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly used in the management of advanced heart failure. The majority of these patients have pre-existing implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). The proximity between the LVAD inflow cannula and right ventricular (RV) defibrillation lead raises the potential for disruption of ICD function.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
August 2025
Division of Cardiology, Louisiana State University Health, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA.
Background: End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing invasive procedures, including permanent pacemaker implantation. Leadless pacemakers (L-VVI) have emerged as an alternative to traditional transvenous pacemakers (TV-VVI), especially in ESRD patients to reduce infection rates and preserve vasculature for dialysis access. However, there is limited data comparing the safety and procedural complications following L-VVI and TV-VVI implantation in ESRD patients.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEur Heart J Case Rep
August 2025
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, 6-1 Kishibeshimmachi, Suita, Osaka 564-8565, Japan.
Background: A subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) is an alternative to a conventional transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator for preventing sudden cardiac death. Although posterior chest S-ICD implantation has been recommended for better defibrillation outcomes, little is known about the optimal S-ICD positioning for R-wave detection. Herein, we report two cases of S-ICD recipients in whom antero-inferior chest positioning improved R-wave detection after posterior chest positioning failed.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF