Key result
Subcutaneous ICD proves noninferior to transvenous ICD for device complications and inappropriate shocks.
Why the study?
Does a subcutaneous ICD reduce device-related complications and inappropriate shocks compared to a transvenous ICD in patients with an indication for an ICD but no indication for pacing?
Does a subcutaneous ICD reduce device-related complications and inappropriate shocks compared to a transvenous ICD in patients with an indication for an ICD but no indication for pacing?
In patients requiring an ICD without a pacing indication, the subcutaneous ICD is noninferior to the transvenous ICD regarding the composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks.
Supports subcutaneous ICD as alternative for patients without pacing needs; extends prior data with randomized confirmation of noninferiority.
In patients with an indication for an ICD but no indication for pacing, the subcutaneous ICD was noninferior to the transvenous ICD with respect to device-related complications and inappropriate shocks. (Funded by Boston Scientific; PRAETORIAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01296022.).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Knops et al. (2020) studied this question. The subcutaneous ICD was noninferior to the transvenous ICD regarding device-related complications and inappropriate shocks in patients needing ICD therapy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: