Why the study?
Complications and long-term consequences of transvenous ICD leads, alongside expanding indications in younger and complex patients, prompted alternative extravascular configurations.
What are the contemporary options, indications, advantages, and disadvantages of non-traditional extravascular ICD configurations compared to traditional transvenous systems?
What are the contemporary options, indications, advantages, and disadvantages of non-traditional extravascular ICD configurations compared to traditional transvenous systems?
Non-traditional extravascular ICD configurations provide viable, individualized alternatives to overcome the long-term complications and anatomical limitations associated with traditional transvenous ICD systems.
ICDs remain first-line for high-risk ventricular arrhythmias; review leaves open comparative long-term data versus alternative systems.
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have revolutionized the treatment of acquired or inherited cardiac diseases associated with a high risk of sudden cardiac death due to ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Contemporary ICD devices offer reliable arrhythmia detection and discrimination algorithms and deliver highly efficient tachytherapies. Percutaneously inserted transvenous defibrillator coils with pectoral generator placement are the first-line approach in the majority of adults due to their extensively documented clinical benefit and efficiency with comparably low periprocedural implantation risks as well as the option of providing pain-free tachycardia treatment via anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP), concomitant bradycardiaprotection, and incorporation in a cardiac resynchronization therapy if indicated. Yet, expanding ICD indications particularly among younger and more complex patient groups as well as the increasingly evident long-term consequences and complications associated with intravascular lead placements promoted the development of alternative ICD configurations. Most established in daily clinical practice is the subcutaneous ICD but other innovative extravascular approaches like epicardial, pericardial, extra-pleural, and most recently substernal defibrillator coil placements have been introduced as well to overcome shortcomings associated with traditional devices and allow for individualized treatment strategies tailored to the patients characteristics and needs. The review aims to provide practical solutions for common complications encountered with transvenous ICD systems including restricted venous access, high defibrillation/fibrillation thresholds (DFTs), and recurrent device infections. We summarize the contemporary options for non-traditional extravascular ICD configurations outlining indications, advantages, and disadvantages.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tonko et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: