Why the study?
Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are associated with intravascular lead-related complications, and the subcutaneous ICD was developed to assess whether key ICD performance measures and lead-related complications could be improved.
Does a subcutaneous ICD reduce perioperative major lead-related complications compared to a transvenous ICD in patients with an indication for an ICD who are younger than 60, have a cardiogenetic phenotype, or have risk factors for lead complications?
Does a subcutaneous ICD reduce perioperative major lead-related complications compared to a transvenous ICD in patients with an indication for an ICD who are younger than 60, have a cardiogenetic phenotype, or have risk factors for lead complications?
The S-ICD significantly reduces perioperative lead-related complications compared to TV-ICD, though it is associated with more early postoperative pain and a trend toward more inappropriate shocks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports preferring S-ICD to reduce perioperative lead complications in younger or high-risk patients; confirms RCT evidence of lower lead risk versus TV-ICD.
Healey et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: