Why the study?
Does the subcutaneous (S)-ICD prevent lead malfunction and infection in patients without pacing needs undergoing ICD implantation?
Does the subcutaneous (S)-ICD prevent lead malfunction and infection in patients without pacing needs undergoing ICD implantation?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The subcutaneous (S)-ICD should be considered for patients without pacing needs to avoid the long-term risks of transvenous lead malfunction and infection.
in the ICD population, the long-term risks of lead malfunction and infection become greater concerns.Studies have shown that >20% of patients will have a lead failure by 10 years, and this observation does not include recalled leads, such as Fidelis and Riata, that have shown much higher failure rates.[9][10][11] given the short-and long-term risks of ICDs, it is important to select the right device carefully for each patient.Indiscriminate use of CRT, dual-chamber ICDs, suboptimal programming, or poorly designed transvenous leads undermines the role of these devices to prevent SCD.It is in this context that the subcutaneous (S)-ICD should be considered for patients without pacing needs undergoing ICD implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Poole et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: