Key result
Among patients undergoing de novo ICD implantation without a CRT indication, an S-ICD was implanted in only 12% (62 of 510), preferentially for secondary prevention in young patients.
Why the study?
What are the clinical characteristics and factors guiding the choice between S-ICD and transvenous ICD in current practice?
Population
947 consecutive patients undergoing de novo ICD implantation in 33 Italian centres from September to…
Comparison
Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillat… vs Transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Low S-ICD uptake despite broad suitability cautions against over-reliance on perceived pacing needs; leaves open prospective studies of selection barriers.
Observational (n=947)
Yes
What are the clinical characteristics and factors guiding the choice between S-ICD and transvenous ICD in current practice?
Despite a perceived need for pacing or ATP driving the preference for transvenous ICDs, the vast majority of patients needing ICD therapy are suitable candidates for S-ICD.
Botto et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Patients undergoing de novo ICD implantation (n=947). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) vs. Transvenous ICD was evaluated on S-ICD implantation rate among patients with no CRT indication. Among patients undergoing de novo ICD implantation without a CRT indication, an S-ICD was implanted in only 12% (62 of 510), preferentially for secondary prevention in young patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: