Trends in adoption of extravascular cardiac implantable electronic devices: the Dutch cohort (2024)

Introduction

Conventional implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and pacemakers carry a risk of mainly pocket- and lead-related complications. To avoid these complications, extravascular devices (EVDs) have been developed, such as the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) and leadless pacemaker (LP). However, data on the actual adoption of EVDs for patient or center characteristics is lacking.

Purpose

To assess real-world nationwide trends in adoption of EVDs in the Netherlands.

Methods

Using the Netherlands Heart Registration, all consecutive patients with a de novo S-ICD or conventional single-chamber ICD implantation between 2012-2020, or with a de novo LP or conventional single-chamber pacemaker implantation between 2014-2020 were included. Trends in adoption of EVDs are described for different patient and hospital characteristics (tertiles of device-implanting volume and whether cardiothoracic surgery back-up was available). Differences between patients with EVDs and non-EVDs and differences between implanting centers of EVDs and non-EVDs were tested for by Student’s T-test, Chi-square and Fisher’s exact test. Trends in adoption over time were calculated with linear and logistic regression analysis.

Results

From 2012-2020, 2190 S-ICDs and 10683 conventional ICDs were implanted; from 2014-2020, 712 LPs and 11103 conventional pacemakers were implanted. The general adoption of both increased (S-ICDs, 8% to 21%; LPs, 1% to 8%), but the increase seems to reach a plateau (Fig. 1). S-ICD recipients were younger than conventional ICD recipients (p<0.001) and more likely to be female (p<0.001); LP recipients were younger than conventional pacemaker recipients (p<0.001) and more likely to be male (p=0.03). Both S-ICDs and LPs were mainly implanted in high-volume centers with thoracic surgery on-site (Fig. 2).

Conclusions