Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The S-ICD is a viable alternative to transvenous ICDs for preventing sudden cardiac death in patients who do not require pacing, offering reduced lead-related complications despite some device-specific limitations.
The entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD(®)) is emerging as a widely accepted therapeutic alternative to a conventional implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for prevention of sudden cardiac death. Essentially, the S-ICD(®) is promising in terms of reduction of electrode-related complications such as lead failure and infections. The conventional transvenous ICD has proven efficacy in various randomized clinical trials. The first results of S-ICD(®) studies confirm efficacy and safety in primary and secondary prevention as well. Owing to basic differences between S-ICD(®) and transvenous ICD-such as limited programming options and lack of pacing-not all patients are eligible for the S-ICD(®). Concerns exist regarding inappropriate shocks due to T-wave oversensing, dimensions of the device, and shorter battery longevity. However, the S-ICD(®) should be considered a useful supplementation of ICD therapy in those patients at risk for sudden cardiac death who are not expected to require pacing due to bradycardia or antitachycardic pacing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bettin et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: