Key result
S-ICD effectively prevents SCD while avoiding the lead and vascular complications of transvenous systems.
Why the study?
With the increasing worldwide adoption of S-ICD to overcome transvenous ICD limitations, guidance on the implantation procedure is needed.
This review summarizes technical considerations and best practices for S-ICD implantation to optimize device function and minimize surgical and electrical complications.
May support S-ICD consideration to avoid lead complications; extends observational data but leaves randomized outcome trials open.
An implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was developed to provide protection against sudden cardiac death. Despite being effective in terminating ventricular arrhythmias, traditional transvenous ICDs appeared over time to have certain limitations related to the need for vascular access and the presence of foreign material inside the circulatory system (namely lead failure and infections). A subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) was developed to overcome those limitations and to provide prevention against sudden cardiac death from outside the cardiovascular system. Utilization of that modern method of treatment is constantly increasing worldwide, and new centers incorporate implantation of that system in their portfolio. This review aims to present the most relevant issues related to S-ICD implantation procedure, based on experience of the authors and an extensive literature search.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Budrejko et al. (2023) conducted a review in Sudden cardiac death. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) vs. Transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) was evaluated.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: