Two Limitations of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in the Same Patient Warranting Its Explant

29 April 2021: Articles

Unusual clinical course, Unusual or unexpected effect of treatment

Rahul Dhawan ^A , Mansoor Ahmad ^D , Aravdeep Jhand ^D , Sumera Kanwal ^D , Adeel Jamil ^D , Faris Khan ^A*

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.