Suitability for subcutaneous defibrillator implantation: results based on data from routine clinical practice

Bie, Míhàly K. de; Thijssen, Joep; Rees, Johannes B. van; Putter, Hein; Velde, Enno T. van der; Schalij, Martin J.; Erven, Lieselot van

doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2012-303349

Cited by 43 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent study demonstrated that approximately 60% of the patients with a transvenous ICD without a preexistent indication for pacing could be suitable for S-ICD implantation. 10 This implies that, following our finding that 93% of the patients have an appropriate TMS-ECG, more than 50% of all ICD patients without a preexistent pacing indication could be eligible for S-ICD implantation. On the other hand, the S-ICD cannot be used as first line therapy in more than 7% of the patients, with even higher rates in selected populations such as HCM and obese patients.…”

Section: Prevalence Of S-icd Suitabilitymentioning

confidence: 92%

Which Patients Are Not Suitable for a Subcutaneous ICD: Incidence and Predictors of Failed QRS‐T‐Wave Morphology Screening

Nordkamp

Warnaars

Kooiman

et al. 2014

Cardiovasc electrophysiol

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In patients without an indication for pacing, 7.4% would have been not suitable for a S-ICD according to the TMS. HCM, a heavy weight, a prolonged QRS duration and a R:T ratio <3 in the ECG lead with the largest T wave were independently associated with TMS failure. These data might alert physicians that selection of patients for a S-ICD should be considered with special caution in certain patient groups, because they may not satisfy ECG criteria for adequate sensing.

show abstract

Section: Prevalence Of S-icd Suitabilitymentioning

confidence: 92%

Which Patients Are Not Suitable for a Subcutaneous ICD: Incidence and Predictors of Failed QRS‐T‐Wave Morphology Screening

Nordkamp

Warnaars

Kooiman

et al. 2014

Cardiovasc electrophysiol

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This raises the question as to what proportion of patients who would qualify for an S-ICD would ultimately require pacing or ATP & hence need conversion of their device to a transvenous system. A recent Dutch study of ICD recipients reviewed 463 patients followed up over a median of 3.4 years between 2002-11 [28]. It was demonstrated that 55.5 % (95 % CI 52.0 % to 59.0 %) of single or dual chamber ICD recipients would have been suitable for an initial S-ICD implantation after 5 years, i.e.…”

Section: Limitations Of the S-icd: Bradycardia Pacing And Anti-tachycmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early Experience with the Subcutaneous ICD

Lambiase

Srinivasan

2014

Curr Cardiol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Subcutaneous Internal Cardiac Defibrillator (S-ICD) represents a major advance in the care of patients who have an indication for an internal cardiac defibrillator without pacing indications. Its main advantage is that it can deliver a shock to cardiovert ventricular arrhythmias utilising a tunnelled subcutaneous lead, negating the risks associated with conventional transvenous systems. Initial studies have shown comparable efficacy in cardioversion of induced and spontaneous ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) when compared to conventional transvenous systems. In addition, inappropriate shocks occurred in a similar percentage of patients to conventional ICD studies. Complication rates are low and relate largely to localised wound infections, treated successfully with antibiotics. The long term efficacy of the device is yet to be ascertained, however, a randomised trial & prospective registries are currently in progress to enable direct comparison with transvenous ICDs. This article summarises the early clinical experience and trials in the implantation of the S-ICD.

show abstract

“…It becomes a less invasive option for patients in whom TV-ICD implantation is surgically impossible. It is estimated that up to 55% of patients in routine clinical practice needing an ICD are potential candidates for a subcutaneous device [14,15]. However, to maximize clinical outcome and cost/benefit ratio, it is fundamental to choose candidates that can benefit most, taking into account both patient and device characteristics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Initial experience with the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator with the real costs of hospitalization analysis in a single Polish center

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Suitability for subcutaneous defibrillator implantation: results based on data from routine clinical practice

Abstract: After 5 years of follow-up, approximately 55% of the patients would have been suitable for an S-ICD implantation. Several baseline clinical characteristics were demonstrated to be useful in the selection of patients suitable for an S-ICD implantation.

Cited by 43 publications

References 30 publications

Which Patients Are Not Suitable for a Subcutaneous ICD: Incidence and Predictors of Failed QRS‐T‐Wave Morphology Screening

Which Patients Are Not Suitable for a Subcutaneous ICD: Incidence and Predictors of Failed QRS‐T‐Wave Morphology Screening

Early Experience with the Subcutaneous ICD

Initial experience with the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator with the real costs of hospitalization analysis in a single Polish center

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About