Long-Term Experience With the Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Teenagers and Young Adults

Bettin, Markus; Larbig, Robert; Rath, Benjamin; Fischer, Alicia Jeanette; Frommeyer, Gerrit; Reinke, Florian; Köbe, Julia; Eckardt, Lars

doi:10.1016/j.jacep.2017.08.017

Cited by 24 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Eight studies ( N = 1726) reported information on inappropriate shocks at different follow‐up times . Overall no differences in rates of inappropriate shocks were found in the meta‐analysis (OR = 1.28; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.78).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Four studies ( N = 520) reported the number of patients with device removal . No difference was found between groups in the meta‐analysis (OR = 1.64; 95% CI: 0.40, 6.70).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…A manual search provided three additional studies (one of them recently published after our literature search); thus, 10 studies were finally eligible for inclusion according to preestablished selection criteria …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study was considered at serious risk of bias due to confounding . Nine studies were considered at moderate risk of bias …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seven studies ( N = 7122) reported information on the number of patients with device reintervention . No statistically significant difference was found between S‐ICD and TV‐ICD (OR = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.65, 1.61).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator in primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death: A meta‐analysis

León‐Salas

Trujillo‐Martín

Garcı́a

et al. 2019

Pacing Clinical Electrophis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD) is gaining in popularity for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. The objective was to evaluate the safety and clinical effectiveness of the S‐ICD for prevention of sudden cardiac death compared to transvenous cardioverter‐defibrillator (TV‐ICD). Methods A systematic review with meta‐analyses was performed. The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCI, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were consulted in March 2018 with no restrictions on publication date. Predefined criteria were used to determine inclusion of studies and to assess their methodologic quality. Results Ten longitudinal‐observational studies with comparison group presenting moderate methodologic flaws were included (N = 7820). The combination of results indicates that health‐related quality of life is not significantly different between S‐ICD and TV‐ICD groups (Physical health: MD = 2.90; 95% CI = −3.88, 9.68/Mental health: MD = 0.13; 95% CI = −2.11, 2.37). Mortality occurred in 4.4% of S‐ICD patients and 5.9% of TV‐ICD patients died (OR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.50, 1.24). The incidence of infections (OR = 1.79; 95% CI = 0.93, 3.43) and inappropriate shocks (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 0.91, 1.78) is not significantly different between both groups. The S‐ICD reduces complications related to electrodes/leads (OR = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.29) and has lower electrodes/leads movement compared with TV‐ICD (OR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.10, 0.67). In contrast, pneumothorax is more likely in TV‐ICD than S‐ICD (OR = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.03, 0.97). Conclusions S‐ICD reduces electrodes/leads movement, electrodes/leads related complications, and pneumothorax. Our study did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in mortality, health‐related quality of life, and infection rate between S‐ICD and TV‐ICD.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Four studies ( N = 520) reported the number of patients with device removal . No difference was found between groups in the meta‐analysis (OR = 1.64; 95% CI: 0.40, 6.70).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study was considered at serious risk of bias due to confounding . Nine studies were considered at moderate risk of bias …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations