A total of 25 major complications were observed in 23 patients, and a total of 29 patients had received 118 inappropriate shocks for 81 arrhythmic episodes. During the 10.6-month mean follow-up period, eight systems were removed without a replacement device. J.P. Morgan analysts wrote that, “overall the results are a positive for Medtronic, look to be competitive relative to Boston’s S-ICD, and should help to modestly expand the market …” Still, they wrote that they expect Boston Scientific to remain a leader in the market for non-transvenous defibrillators, given that it has a big head start and a long history in the market. Comparing data for the two devices, Medtronic’s EV ICD overall looks to be competitive relative to Boston’s S-ICD, the analysts wrote. despite caveats with cross-trial comparisons, especially since Medtronic’s was a single-arm trial. The analysts noted the higher rate of inappropriate shock at 10.6 months in the Medtronic study, at 9.7%, compared to 2.4% at one year for Boston Scientific’s Emblem MRI S-ICD in its UNTOUCHED study. Still, they said that most of the incidences occurred earlier in the study, and many shocks were avoided with the use of anti-tachycardia pacing.
