Key result
Transvenous versus subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators will be evaluated for comparative benefits and harms in patients at risk of sudden cardiac death in a Cochrane protocol.
Why the study?
To evaluate the benefits and harms of using a TV-ICD compared to an S-ICD in patients at risk of sudden cardiac death.
Does a transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) provide better benefits and fewer harms compared to a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) in patients at risk of sudden cardiac death?
Does a transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) provide better benefits and fewer harms compared to a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) in patients at risk of sudden cardiac death?
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review comparing transvenous and subcutaneous ICDs for patients at risk of sudden cardiac death.
No direct TV-ICD vs S-ICD comparison available; protocol leaves device selection for sudden cardiac death risk open.
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the benefits and harms of using a transvenous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (TV‐ICD) compared to a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD) in patients at risk of sudden cardiac death.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iskandarani et al. (2020) studied this question. Transvenous versus subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators will be evaluated for comparative benefits and harms in patients at risk of sudden cardiac death in a Cochrane protocol.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: