Key result
The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is as efficacious as transvenous ICDs and eliminates complications related to vascular access, requiring specific perioperative management.
Why the study?
While S-ICDs match transvenous ICD efficacy and eliminate vascular access complications, issues unique to surgical implantation and pre- and postimplant patient management require review.
This state-of-the-art review provides comprehensive guidance on the unique perioperative considerations and management strategies for patients undergoing S-ICD implantation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports S-ICD-specific perioperative protocols in practice; leaves open need for prospective outcome trials.
The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an important tool in the armamentarium of an electrophysiologist. Multiple randomized trials over the last decade have shown that S-ICDs are as efficacious as the transvenous ICDs and eliminate complications related to vascular access. In this review, we highlight issues unique to S-ICD implantation, focusing not only on the surgical implantation procedure, but also the pre- and postimplant management of the patient.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Singh et al. (2020) conducted a review in Patients requiring implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) vs. Transvenous ICDs was evaluated. The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is as efficacious as transvenous ICDs and eliminates complications related to vascular access, requiring specific perioperative management.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: