SynthesisJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2021
Comparing the safety of subcutaneous versus transvenous ICDs: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: a systematic review of comparative effectiveness and safety.ESC heart failure · 2023Pooled it
- A review of the extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator system: technology, development, clinical outcomes, and global experience.Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2025Review
- Long-term safety and efficacy of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator compared with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in propensity score-matched patients from Japan.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
- Comparison of Preoperative ECG Screening and Device-Based Vector Analysis in Patients Receiving a Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Article
- Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator: A Contemporary Overview.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Ultrasound-Guided Pectoserratus Plane Block and Superficial Serratus Anterior Plane Block for Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation: A Comparative Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023Article
- Usage of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator during pregnancy.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2022Article
- Clinical outcomes of subcutaneous vs. transvenous implantable defibrillator therapy in a polymorbid patient cohort.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- The importance of leadless pacemaker positioning in relation to subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator sensing in completely leadless cardiac resynchronization and defibrillation systems.HeartRhythm case reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe use of transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (TV-ICDs) is associated with multiple risks related to the presence of the defibrillator leads within the venous system and right side of the heart, including endocarditis, venous occlusion, tricuspid regurgitation, and potential lead failure. The emergence of subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICDs) may potentially overcome the aforementioned disadvantages. However, evidence validating the safety of S-ICDs relative to TV-ICDs is limited. The present study aimed to synthesize and analyze available data from published studies to comprehensively compare transvenous and subcutaneous ICDs.
methodsDifferent databases were searched for full-text publications with a direct comparison of TV- and S-ICDs. Fixed effect models were applied to pooled data, and no study-to-study heterogeneity was detected.
resultsData from 7 studies totaling 1666 patients were pooled together. Compared to S-ICDs, the risk of suffering device-related complications was higher in patients with TV-ICDs (OR = 1.71; 95% CI: 1.23-2.38). The number of patients with an S-ICD who suffered inappropriate shocks (IS) was not significantly different than patients with a TV-ICD (OR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.65-1.30). Subgroup analysis indicated that the TV-ICD group had a higher risk of IS due to supraventricular oversensing (OR = 3.29; 95% CI: 1.92-5.63) while T-wave oversensing tending to cause IS in the S-ICD group (OR = 0.09; 95% CI: 0.03-0.23). The risk of device-related infection in the S-ICD group was not any lower than that in the TV-ICD group (OR = 1.57; 95% CI: 0.67-3.68). The survival rate without any complications during a 1-year follow-up period was similar between the 2 groups (HR = 1.23; 95% CI: 0.81-1.86), although it was assumed that the trend leaned toward more complications in patients with a TV-ICD.
conclusionThe present study verified the safety of S-ICDs based on pooled data. Although there were no differences between TV- and S-ICDs in the short term, fewer adverse events were found in patients with S-ICDs during long-term follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.