Abstract Background Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S–ICD) is a suitable alternative for trans–venous–ICD (TV–ICD) patients underwent transvenous lead extraction (TLE) for any reason, but limited data are available about outcome of s–ICD patients implanted after TLE. Methods Thirty–six consecutive patients underwent TLE of TV–ICD and subsequent S–ICD implantation in our center were included in this prospective single–center observational study (72.2% male, median age 52 years–old). Results During a median follow-up of 31 months, 3 patients (8.3%) experienced appropriate therapy and 7 patients (19.4%) experienced complications including innapropriate therapy (IAT) (n = 4; 11.1%), pulse generator decubitus with no evidence of infection (n = 2; 5.5%) and ineffective therapy (n = 1; 2.7%). Reasons of IAT were: T–wave oversensing in one patient and extracardiac signals in the remaining 3 patients. Of note, 2 patients who experienced IAT had a left–ventricular assist device (LVAD) for refractory heart failure (HF). Premature device explantation and TV–ICD re–implantation occurred in 4 patients (11%) for pulse generator decubitus despite surgical pocket revisions (n = 2), for recurrent IAT despite reprogramming (n = 1) and ineffective therapy during arrhythmic storm (n = 1). Eight patients (22.2%) died, 3 patients (9%) underwent LVAD implantation due refractory HF during follow-up. Six patients died because of refractory HF, 1 patient died due to intracerebral hemorrhage and 1 due to sarcoidosis. There were no documented deaths associated with the procedure or the S–ICD system itself. No patient had the device removed because of a perceived need for antitachycardia pacing (ATP) or the necessity of pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy despite 9 patients (25%) after TLE of a two–chamber ICD and one patient (3%) after TLE of a CRT–D. Univariate predictors of death included hypertension (HR 22.72; p = 0.02), diabetes (HR 10.64; p = 0.001), ischemic heart disease (HR 5.92; p = 0.01) and NYHA class > = II (p = 0.04). We did not observed any predictors for complications including IATs and device-related complications requiring surgical revision. Conclusions S–ICD implantaion after TLE of TV–ICD is safy and effective. Baseline clinical characterisctics including ischemic heart disease, diabetes, hypertension and NYHA class > = II are associated with worse survival.