Why the study?
The S-ICD was developed to overcome TV-ICD lead complications and systemic infections, prompting this prespecified secondary analysis to evaluate all complications in the PRAETORIAN trial.
Does the subcutaneous ICD reduce device-related complications and need for invasive interventions compared to transvenous ICD in patients with an indication for ICD therapy?
Does the subcutaneous ICD reduce device-related complications and need for invasive interventions compared to transvenous ICD in patients with an indication for ICD therapy?
S-ICD therapy is associated with fewer lead-related complications, systemic infections, and complications requiring invasive interventions compared to TV-ICD therapy over a median follow-up of 49 months.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
S-ICD reduces invasive interventions and lead complications versus TV-ICD; confirms safety advantage for device selection in RCT.
Knops et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: