Key result
The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator demonstrates comparable clinical efficacy to transvenous systems and is a viable alternative for preventing sudden cardiac death in non-pacing dependent patients.
Population
Patients at risk of sudden cardiac death, particularly young patients or non-pacing dependent patients
Comparison
Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillat… vs Traditional transvenous ICDs
Design
Review
Authors
Loading...
S-ICD may inform device choice in non-pacing patients; leaves open randomized data on inappropriate shocks and long-term outcomes.
The S-ICD is a viable alternative to transvenous systems for preventing sudden cardiac death in non-pacing dependent patients, though challenges with inappropriate shocks and lack of anti-tachycardia pacing remain.
Patel et al. (2014) conducted a review in Sudden cardiac death / Ventricular arrhythmias. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) vs. Transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) was evaluated. The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator demonstrates comparable clinical efficacy to transvenous systems and is a viable alternative for preventing sudden cardiac death in non-pacing dependent patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: