29 April 2021
: Case report 
Two Limitations of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in the Same Patient Warranting Its Explant
Unusual clinical course, Unusual or unexpected effect of treatment
Rahul Dhawan1ADEF, Mansoor Ahmad1DE, Aravdeep Jhand1DE, Sumera Kanwal1DE, Adeel Jamil2DE, Faris Khan1ADEF*DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.928983
Am J Case Rep 2021; 22:e928983
Table 1. Timeline.
| At presentation | S-ICD was placed at outside hospital for secondary prevention |
|---|---|
| 6 months | Patient started having recurrent S-ICD shocks and was started on anti-arrhythmic medications |
| 8 months | Patient was transferred to our hospital for recurrent VT and S-ICD shocks |
| 8 months | TV-ICD was implanted and S-ICD was turned off |
| 11 months | VT ablation was done |
| 12 months | S-ICD was explanted |
| 14 months | Pocket site infection occurred at S-ICD site requiring incision and drainage, along with a short course of antibiotics |
| 26 months | Patient was followed up in clinic, with no additional delayed or inappropriate TV-ICD therapy found |
| S-ICD – subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator; TV-ICD – transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator; VT – ventricular tachycardia. | |