Quality of life in patients with a subcutaneous vs. transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) are well-accepted life-saving devices for treating potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmia, but little is known about quality of life (QoL) in patients with S-ICD and ICD. AIMS: Our study aimed to compare QoL in patients with S-ICD and ICD. METHODS: All consecutive patients who had S-ICD implanted between October 2015 and September 2021 were included in the study. A cohort of transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) patients was matched to S-ICD subjects by sex, age, indications for the device, and type of prevention. All patients were requested to fulfill two standardized questionnaires to assess QoL 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) 6 months after device implantation. RESULTS: Patients with S-ICD (n = 49) and TV-ICD (n = 49) did not differ regarding baseline characteristics. There were no statistically significant differences between S-ICD and TV-ICD subgroup, both for mental and physical QoL assessed in SF-36 and MLHFQ (all P = NS). The median MLHFQ total score was 24 (9-41) for S-ICD and 28 (14-43) for TV-ICD (P = 0.83). The median total score for the SF-36 questionnaire was 62.5 (29-86) vs. 59 (38-77) for S-ICD and TV-ICD, respectively (P = 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: Quality of life after device implantation does not differ significantly between the groups of patients with subcutaneous and conventional implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.