Why the study?
Does the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) provide safe and effective therapy compared to transvenous ICDs in patients at risk for sudden cardiac death?
Does the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) provide safe and effective therapy compared to transvenous ICDs in patients at risk for sudden cardiac death?
The S-ICD is a safe and effective alternative to transvenous ICDs for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients who do not require pacing or CRT.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May reduce lead-related complications with S-ICD; leaves open need for randomized data on long-term efficacy.
INTRODUCTION: In the last few decades, defibrillator therapy has revolutionized treatment of patients at risk for sudden cardiac death. Multiple clinical trials have shown the benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. Being an entirely subcutaneous system, the S-ICD® avoids important periprocedural and long-term complications associated with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) systems as well as the need for fluoroscopy during implant surgery. METHODS AND RESULTS: In patients with challenging anatomic conditions or after infection, the S-ICD® might be reasonable. In multicenter studies and registries efficacy and safety of the S-ICD® was equal or better to transvenous implantable defibrillators. The cardiac rhythm is detected by the use of 1 of the 3 potential vectors. The S-ICD® automatically selects the most suitable vector for rhythm detection. If ventricular tachyarrhythmia is detected, the device is able to deliver up to five shocks of 80 J, while postshock pacing is available at 50 bpm for 30 s. The implantation technique is different from that of conventional ICDs, but easily learnable by experienced cardiologists. Initially observed hurdles (e.g., inappropriate shocks or infections) have been overcome by standardized implantation techniques, operator learning curves, and modification of algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: The S-ICD® predominately might be suitable in all patients with ICD indication except patients with pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) indication, ventricular tachycardia < 170 bpm, negative screening, or in the occasional patient whose arrhythmia might be suppressed by overdrive pacing. The system received CE certification in 2009 and was approved by the FDA in 2012. Currently, in Germany the S-ICD® has been integrated into the DRG system and can be reimbursed as a single chamber ICD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kuschyk et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: