Key result
S-ICDs provide a valid alternative to TV-ICDs for patients not requiring bradycardia pacing or CRT.
Why the study?
Sudden cardiac death remains an important cause of cardiovascular mortality, motivating the development and evolution of the totally subcutaneous ICD to improve upon the risk-benefit balance of transvenous ICD systems.
Does the subcutaneous ICD provide a safe and effective alternative to transvenous ICDs for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients not requiring pacing?
Population
Patients with an ICD indication not requiring bradycardia pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy
Comparison
Subcutaneous ICD vs transvenous ICD systems
Design
Review
Authors
Loading...
Supports S-ICD consideration in non-pacing patients; leaves open need for randomized comparative trials.
Does the subcutaneous ICD provide a safe and effective alternative to transvenous ICDs for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients not requiring pacing?
The S-ICD is a valid and potentially safer alternative to transvenous ICDs for preventing sudden cardiac death in patients who do not need pacing or CRT.
Jan Steffel (2020) conducted a review in Sudden cardiac death. Subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) vs. Transvenous ICDs was evaluated. Current generation subcutaneous ICD systems are a valid alternative to transvenous ICDs in patients with an ICD indication not requiring bradycardia pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: