Key result
S-ICD evolves into an effective alternative to transvenous ICDs driven by technical improvements.
Why the study?
Does the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator provide a safe and effective alternative to transvenous ICDs for ventricular arrhythmia?
Comparison
S-ICD vs TV-ICD
Design
Review
Authors
Loading...
Advances support S-ICD consideration in select patients; leaves open confirmatory RCTs before broad adoption.
Does the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator provide a safe and effective alternative to transvenous ICDs for ventricular arrhythmia?
The S-ICD is evolving into a complete alternative to transvenous ICDs, with ongoing technical improvements addressing initial limitations such as pacing capabilities and inappropriate shocks.
Dijk et al. (2019) conducted a review in Ventricular arrhythmia. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) vs. Transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) was evaluated. The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator is evolving through technical improvements to become an effective alternative to transvenous ICDs for ventricular arrhythmias.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: