Key result
The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (EV ICD) system, evaluated in >140 human implants, offers defibrillation and pacing therapies while avoiding transvenous hardware complications.
Why the study?
The EV ICD system with substernal lead placement provides defibrillation and pacing therapies without endovascular lead complications, but requires a new implantation procedure with an evolving safety profile.
Does the extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (EV ICD) provide effective defibrillation and pacing therapies while avoiding long-term complications of transvenous systems?
Does the extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (EV ICD) provide effective defibrillation and pacing therapies while avoiding long-term complications of transvenous systems?
The EV ICD system with substernal lead placement is a promising novel alternative to transvenous and subcutaneous ICDs, offering defibrillation and pacing without vascular placement.
INTRODUCTION: The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillato (EV ICD) system with substernal lead placement is a novel nontransvenous alternative to current commercially available ICD systems. The EV ICD provides defibrillation and pacing therapies without the potential long-term complications of endovascular lead placement but requires a new procedure for implantation with a safety profile under evaluation. METHODS: This paper summarizes the development of the EV ICD, including the preclinical and clinical evaluations that have contributed to the system and procedural refinements to date. RESULTS: Extensive preclinical research evaluations and four human clinical studies with >140 combined acute and chronic implants have enabled the development and refinement of the EV ICD system, currently in worldwide pivotal study. CONCLUSION: The EV ICD may represent a clinically valuable solution in protecting patients from sudden cardiac death while avoiding the long-term consequences of transvenous hardware. The EV ICD offers advantages over transvenous and subcutaneous systems by avoiding placement in the heart and vasculature; relative to subcutaneous systems, EV ICD requires less energy for defibrillation, enabling a smaller device, and provides pacing features such as antitachycardia and asystole pacing in a single system.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thompson et al. (2022) conducted a review in Sudden cardiac arrest (n=140). Extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (EV ICD) vs. Transvenous and subcutaneous systems was evaluated. The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (EV ICD) system, evaluated in >140 human implants, offers defibrillation and pacing therapies while avoiding transvenous hardware complications.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: