Utilization and in-hospital complications associated with implantation of dual versus single chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death

Abstract Introduction Multiple studies showed no clinical benefit in implantation of a dual compared to single chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator (dICD vs. sICD) for primary prevention sudden cardiac death (SCD), patients with pacing indication. We aimed investigate the extent utilization and complications sICD dICD implantations US, using National In-Patient Sample (NIS) database. Methods Using NIS database, we identified who underwent an elective ICD US between 2015 (last quarter)-2019. Patients had concurrent conduction disorders or indication atrial were excluded. Baseline demographics, characteristics, cardiomyopathy etiologies as well outcomes including in-hospital complications, length stay mortality collected. Multivariable logistic regression models used identify predictors complications. Results discussion An estimated total 15940 patients, SCD identified, 8860 (55.6%) them received dICD. Forty percent ischemic cardiomyopathy. The mean age was 64 years 66% males. complication rates documented groups 13% 11%, respectively (p<0.001),driven by increased rate pneumothorax (4.8% vs 3.2%, p<0.001) lead dislodgement (3.6% 2.3%, p<0.001, Table 1). Multivariate analysis confirmed adding independent risk factor “any complication” during [OR 1.13 (1.02–1.25), p=0.022] pneumo/hemothorax 1.21 (1.03–1.44), p=0.025] 1.41 (1.16–1.72), p<0.001]. Conclusion Despite significant evidence lack implantation, proportion are implanted show recent years, driven higher incidence dislodgement. Funding Acknowledgement Type funding sources: None.