Leo M, Sharp AJ, Gala ABE, Pope MTB, Betts TR. Transvenous or subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: a review to aid decision-making.
J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2022:10.1007/s10840-022-01299-6. [PMID:
35835888 DOI:
10.1007/s10840-022-01299-6]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2022] [Accepted: 07/06/2022] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is a proven treatment for preventing sudden cardiac death. Transvenous leads are associated with significant mortality and morbidity, and the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) addresses this. However, it is not without limitations, in particular the absence of anti-tachycardia pacing. The decision of which device is most suitable for an individual patient is often complex. Here, we review the relative merits and weaknesses of both the transvenous and S-ICD. We summarise the available evidence for each device in particular patient cohorts, namely: ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy, idiopathic ventricular fibrillation, Brugada syndrome, long QT syndrome, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
Collapse