Key result
A review of extravascular and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators found insufficient clinical data to determine the efficacy and safety of EV-ICDs and modular systems.
Why the study?
Two newer types of ICDs—the EV-ICD and S-ICD—along with modular cardiac rhythm management systems offer alternatives to transvenous ICDs, but comparing their safety, performance, and clinical roles is needed to support clinical decision-making.
What are the clinical efficacy and safety outcomes of extravascular ICDs, subcutaneous ICDs, and modular cardiac rhythm management systems?
What are the clinical efficacy and safety outcomes of extravascular ICDs, subcutaneous ICDs, and modular cardiac rhythm management systems?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This review highlights the current lack of sufficient clinical data on the efficacy and safety of emerging extravascular and modular ICD systems, emphasizing the need for further comparative research.
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are life-saving devices used to prevent sudden cardiac death. Two newer types of ICDs—the extravascular ICD (EV-ICD) and the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD)—offer alternatives to traditional transvenous ICDs. Additionally, efforts are being made to introduce defibrillation and pacing interventions through a single device called the modular cardiac rhythm management system (mCRM). This review compares the EV-ICD and S-ICD based on currently available clinical data, focusing on their safety and performance. Additionally, we review modular ICD systems, which integrate leadless pacing with defibrillation. We conducted a comprehensive literature search of PubMed and ScienceDirect, focusing on articles demonstrating the clinical outcomes of EV-ICDs and S-ICDs as well as modular systems. However, we found that sufficient studies are not available to determine the clinical efficacy and safety outcomes of EV-ICDs and the mCRM. Additionally, comparative studies between EV-ICDs and S-ICDs are still required to determine their relative roles in the field of electrophysiology, with the goal of empowering clinicians to understand these emerging technologies to support better patient care decision-making.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jalil et al. (2026) conducted a review in Sudden cardiac death prevention. Extravascular ICD (EV-ICD) and Subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) was evaluated on Clinical efficacy and safety outcomes. A review of extravascular and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators found insufficient clinical data to determine the efficacy and safety of EV-ICDs and modular systems.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: