A PRospective, rAndomizEd Comparison of subcuTaneOous and tRansvenous ImplANtable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy

Overview

This randomized controlled trial will outline the advantages and disadvantages of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) compared to the transvenous ICD.

Background of the study: The use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) is an established therapy for the prevention of death from ventricular arrhythmia. Recently a new subcutaneous ICD has been introduced, eliminating the need for transvenous lead placement in or on the heart which is mandatory in the transvenous ICD. The new subcutaneous ICD therapy already proved to be feasible and safe and is an approved therapy in Europe. It is likely that the eliminated need for transvenous lead placement substantially reduces the implantation related complications and elongates lead longevity and thus reduces inappropriate shocks associated with lead fractures. On the other hand it is unclear whether the lack of capability to provide antitachy-pacing (ATP) in the subcutaneous ICD may be a limitation for patients with frequent recurrent ventricular tachycardia. This randomized controlled trial will outline the advantages and disadvantages of the subcutaneous ICD. Objectives of the study: (1) To compare the subcutaneous ICD to the transvenous ICD for major adverse events (i.e. inappropriate shocks, acute and chronic implant related complications and lead- or device related complications). (2) To determine to which degree the lack of ATP function leads to more appropriate shocks in patients with a subcutaneous ICD. Study design: Multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial with either treatment with the transvenous ICD or subcutaneous ICD (1:1). Study population: 2x425 patients with class I or IIa indication for ICD therapy without an indication for pacing.

Conditions

Interventions

Eligibility

Locations (39)

Outcomes