Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Mar;18(3):382-391.
doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.11.013. Epub 2020 Nov 16.

Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable defibrillator: An updated meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable defibrillator: An updated meta-analysis

Roberto Rordorf et al. Heart Rhythm. 2021 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement is a well-established therapy for prevention of sudden cardiac death. The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) was specifically designed to overcome some of the complications related to the transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD), such as lead complications and systemic infections. Evidence on the comparison of S-ICD vs TV-ICD are limited.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to conduct an updated meta-analysis comparing S-ICD vs TV-ICD.

Methods: Electronic databases were searched for studies directly comparing clinical outcomes and complications between S-ICD and TV-ICD. The primary outcome was the composite of clinically relevant complications (lead, pocket, major procedural complications; device-related infections) and inappropriate shocks. Secondary outcomes included death and the individual components of the primary outcome.

Results: Thirteen studies comprising 9073 patients were included in the analysis. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 40% ± 10%; 30% of patients were female; and 73% had an ICD implanted for primary prevention. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of the primary outcome between S-ICD and TV-ICD (odds ratio [OR] 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.19). Patients with S-ICD had lower risk of lead complications (OR 0.14; 95% CI 0.06-0.29; P <.00001) and major procedural complications (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.06-0.57; P = .003) but higher risk of pocket complications (OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.30-3.66; P = .003) compared to those with TV-ICD. No significant differences were found for the other outcomes.

Conclusion: In patients with an indication for ICD without the need for pacing, TV-ICD and S-ICD are overall comparable in terms of the composite of clinically relevant device-related complications and inappropriate shock.

Keywords: Appropriate therapy; Complications; Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; Inappropriate therapy; Subcutaneous; Transvenous.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources