Key result
Subcutaneous ICDs offer a safe and effective alternative to transvenous systems for primary SCD prevention.
Why the study?
Are subcutaneous ICDs a safe and effective alternative to intravenous defibrillation systems for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients not requiring pacing?
Are subcutaneous ICDs a safe and effective alternative to intravenous defibrillation systems for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients not requiring pacing?
Subcutaneous ICDs provide a safe and effective alternative to transvenous ICDs for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients without pacing indications.
The article provides a review of international clinical studies on the use of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in comparison with classical intravenous defibrillation systems. Subcutaneous ICDs have shown themselves to be a worthy alternative to intravenous defibrillating systems for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, when the patient is not indicated for anti-tachy stimulation and anti-brady stimulation. World experience on the use of subcutaneous ICDs proves the safety and effectiveness of the functioning of the subcutaneous ICD system, excluding from the patient’s life the formidable risks associated with the implantation procedure and further functioning of the classical intravenous ICD system.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prokopenko et al. (2022) conducted a review in Sudden cardiac death (primary prevention). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) vs. Classical intravenous defibrillation systems was evaluated on Safety and effectiveness. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are a safe and effective alternative to classical intravenous systems for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: