Key result
Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators demonstrated >96% overall shock efficacy and a 2.7% pocket infection rate, suggesting similar short-term outcomes to transvenous ICDs.
Why the study?
Does the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) provide acceptable efficacy and safety compared to conventional transvenous ICDs in patients not requiring pacing?
Systematic Review (n=5,380)
Does the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) provide acceptable efficacy and safety compared to conventional transvenous ICDs in patients not requiring pacing?
S-ICDs demonstrate high shock efficacy (>96%) and acceptable short-term complication rates, supporting their use as an alternative to transvenous ICDs in patients not requiring pacing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports S-ICD use for arrhythmia termination; extends pooled evidence guiding device selection.
Chue et al. (2017) conducted a systematic review in patients not requiring pacing (n=5,380). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) vs. conventional transvenous ICDs (TV-ICDs) was evaluated on efficacy and safety outcomes. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators demonstrated >96% overall shock efficacy and a 2.7% pocket infection rate, suggesting similar short-term outcomes to transvenous ICDs.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: