A systematic review of ICD complications in randomised controlled trials versus registries: is our ‘real-world’ data an underestimation?
Open Access
- 1 January 2015
- journal article
- review article
- Published by BMJ in Open Heart
- Vol. 2 (1), e000198
- https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2014-000198
Abstract
Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation carries a significant risk of complications, however published estimates appear inconsistent. We aimed to present a contemporary systematic review using meta-analysis methods of ICD complications in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and compare it to recent data from the largest international ICD registry, the US National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR). PubMed was searched for any RCTs involving ICD implantation published 1999–2013; 18 were identified for analysis including 6433 patients, mean follow-up 3 months–5.6 years. Exclusion criteria were studies of children, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, congenital heart disease, resynchronisation therapy and generator changes. Total pooled complication rate from the RCTs (excluding inappropriate shocks) was 9.1%, including displacement 3.1%, pneumothorax 1.1% and haematoma 1.2%. Infection rate was 1.5%.There were no predictors of complications but longer follow-up showed a trend to higher complication rates (p=0.07). In contrast, data from the NCDR ICD, reporting on 356 515 implants (2006–2010) showed a statistically significant threefold lower total major complication rate of 3.08% with lead displacement 1.02%, haematoma 0.86% and pneumothorax 0.44%. The overall ICD complication rate in our meta-analysis is 9.1% over 16 months. The ICD complication reported in the NCDR ICD registry is significantly lower despite a similar population. This may reflect under-reporting of complications in registries. Reporting of ICD complications in RCTs and registries is very variable and there is a need to standardise classification of complications internationally.Keywords
This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit:
- Complications after cardiac implantable electronic device implantations: an analysis of a complete, nationwide cohort in DenmarkEuropean Heart Journal, 2013
- Survival of Patients Receiving a Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Clinical Practice vs Clinical TrialsJAMA, 2013
- Outcome and Complications After Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy in Hypertrophic CardiomyopathyCirculation: Heart Failure, 2012
- 2010 Focused Update of ESC Guidelines on device therapy in heart failure: An update of the 2008 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure and the 2007 ESC guidelines for cardiac and resynchronization therapy Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association and the European Heart Rhythm AssociationEuropean Heart Journal, 2010
- Efficacy and Safety of Automatic Remote Monitoring for Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Follow-UpCirculation, 2010
- Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: Do Women Fare Worse Than Men? Gender Comparison in the INTRINSIC RV TrialJournal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 2009
- Estimates of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator ComplicationsCirculation, 2009
- ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for Device-Based Therapy of Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities: American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices) Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic SurgeonsHeart Rhythm, 2008
- Prophylactic Defibrillator Implantation in Patients with Nonischemic Dilated CardiomyopathyThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2004
- Lead- and device-related complications in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators TrialAmerican Heart Journal, 2001