RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Post-procedural recovery following sub-cutaneous ICD (S-ICD) implantation is feared to be more painful and to require more prolonged hospital admission. The purpose of this study was to compare peri-procedural and short clinical outcomes of the S-ICD vs. the Transvenous ICD (TV-ICD). METHODS: We conducted a single-center cross-sectional study including all consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD implantation by the same operator since January 2016 and a gender and age-matched control group with all single chamber TV-ICD implanted patients over a contemporary time period. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients (sex ratio 1/5; mean age 58.7±13.2years) with S-ICD were compared to 31 matched TV-ICD patients. Duration of the implant procedure was significantly longer for the S-ICD (58.0±24.4min vs 41.7±20.8min TV-ICD, p<0.01). Mean fluoroscopy time for the TV-ICD was 3.5±3.6min vs 0.1±0.01min for all S-ICD patients (p<0.01). Requirement of on-demand analgesia administration, and duration of hospitalization (1.5days for both groups; p=NS) were similar in the two groups. No peri-procedural events were reported, and after a mean follow-up of 6months, the only complication was a pocket infection requiring reintervention in the TV-ICD group. CONCLUSIONS: The S-ICD appears to be as effective and safe as the conventional single chamber TV-ICD. Duration of hospital admission and need of on-demand analgesia are also comparable for S-ICD patients.