Key result
Review outlines indications, implantation techniques, and anesthetic considerations for S-ICD and EV-ICD systems.
Why the study?
Traditional transvenous ICD leads are susceptible to mechanical failure or infection, prompting the approval of entirely extravascular ICD systems that require defined anesthetic considerations.
This review provides an evidence-based overview of indications, implantation techniques, and anesthetic considerations for novel extravascular and subcutaneous ICD systems.
Extravascular ICDs offer leadless options to reduce transvenous complications; leaves open comparative long-term data versus traditional devices.
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are critical for the prevention of sudden cardiac death due to ventricular arrhythmias and are commonly encountered in the perioperative space. Traditional devices contain transvenous leads that are susceptible to mechanical failure or infection. To reduce these complications, two entirely extravascular ICDs are currently approved for implantation: the subcutaneous Emblem MRI S-ICD and the extravascular Aurora EV-ICD. This article provides an evidence-based review of the indications for use, implantation technique, and anesthetic considerations for these novel systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tanabe et al. (2026) conducted a review in Sudden cardiac death / ventricular arrhythmias. Subcutaneous and Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators was evaluated. This review outlines the indications, implantation techniques, and anesthetic considerations for the subcutaneous Emblem MRI S-ICD and extravascular Aurora EV-ICD systems.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: