Key result
Among single- or dual-chamber ICD recipients, the cumulative incidence of suitability for an initial subcutaneous ICD implantation was 55.5% (95% CI 52.0-59.0%) after 5 years.
Why the study?
What proportion of current single- or dual-chamber ICD recipients would be suitable for a subcutaneous lead ICD (S-ICD)?
Population
1345 patients who received a single- or dual-chamber ICD between 2002 and 2011, excluding those with a…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
median 3.4 years (IQR 1.7-5.7 years)
Authors
Loading...
May support S-ICD eligibility screening in transvenous ICD recipients; leaves open impact on outcomes in prospective studies.
Cohort (n=1,345)
No
What proportion of current single- or dual-chamber ICD recipients would be suitable for a subcutaneous lead ICD (S-ICD)?
Approximately 55% of patients receiving a single- or dual-chamber ICD would be suitable for a subcutaneous ICD after 5 years of follow-up.
Bie et al. (2013) conducted a cohort in ICD recipients (n=1,345). Single- or dual-chamber ICD was evaluated on Suitability for an S-ICD (not reaching pacing indication, successful ATP without shock, or CRT-D upgrade) (95% CI 52.0-59.0). Among single- or dual-chamber ICD recipients, the cumulative incidence of suitability for an initial subcutaneous ICD implantation was 55.5% (95% CI 52.0-59.0%) after 5 years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: