Need for pacing in patients who qualify for an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator: Clinical implications for the subcutaneous ICD

Abstract

BackgroundImplantation of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD) is spreading and has been shown to be safe and effective; however, it does not provide brady‐pacing. Currently, data on the need for brady‐pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation in patients with ICD indication are limited.MethodsThe Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT)‐II enrolled post‐MI patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF ≤ 35%), randomized to either an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) or conventional medical therapy. Kaplan–Meier analyses and multivariate Cox models were performed to assess the incidence and predictors of pacemaker (PM), or CRT implantation in the conventional arm of MADIT‐II, after excluding 32 patients (6.5%) with a previously implanted PM.ResultsDuring the median follow‐up of 20 months, 24 of 458 patients (5.2%) were implanted with a PM or a CRT (19 PM, 5 CRT). Symptomatic sinus bradycardia was the primary indication for PM implantation (n = 9, 37%), followed by AV block (n = 5, 21%), tachy‐brady syndrome (n = 4, 17%), and carotid sinus hypersensitivity (n = 1, 4%). Baseline PR interval >200 ms (HR = 3.07, 95% CI: 1.24–7.57, p = .02), and CABG before enrollment (HR = 6.88, 95% CI: 1.58–29.84, p = .01) predicted subsequent PM/CRT implantation. Patients with PM/CRT implantation had a significantly higher risk for heart failure (HR = 2.67, 95% CI = 1.38–5.14, p = .003), but no increased mortality risk (HR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.46–2.46, p = .89).ConclusionThe short‐term need for ventricular pacing or CRT implantation in patients with MADIT‐II ICD indication was low, especially in those with a normal baseline PR interval, and such patients are appropriate candidates for the subcutaneous ICD.