Key result
The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator provides therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death while avoiding complications associated with transvenous leads.
Why the study?
What is the current evidence regarding patient eligibility, implant technique, and efficacy of the subcutaneous ICD compared with the standard transvenous ICD?
What is the current evidence regarding patient eligibility, implant technique, and efficacy of the subcutaneous ICD compared with the standard transvenous ICD?
This state-of-the-art review summarizes current evidence on the optimal utilization, patient eligibility, and efficacy of the subcutaneous ICD compared to transvenous systems.
The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) provides therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death while avoiding the numerous complications associated with transvenous leads. This relatively novel device employs an innovative approach to sensing and defibrillation from outside of the thoracic cage. Substantial data from cohort studies and registries have accrued and can be used to inform patient eligibility, implant technique, and efficacy compared with the standard transvenous ICD. This review serves to update the clinician as to current evidence and the nuances involved in the optimal utilization of this innovative technology
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McLeod et al. (2015) conducted a review in Prevention of sudden cardiac death. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) vs. Standard transvenous ICD was evaluated. The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator provides therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death while avoiding complications associated with transvenous leads.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: