An Entirely Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter–Defibrillator

Bardy, Gust H.; Smith, Warren; Hood, Margaret; Crozier, Ian; Melton, Iain; Jordaens, Luc; Theuns, Dominic; Park, Robert E.; Wright, David J.; Connelly, Derek T.; Fynn, Simon P.; Murgatroyd, Francis; Sperzel, Johannes; Neuzner, J.; Spitzer, Stefan G.; Ардашев, А.; Oduro, A.; Boersma, Lucas V.A.; Maass, Alexander H.; Gelder, Isabelle C. Van; Wilde, Arthur A.M.; Dessel, Pascal F. van; Knops, Reinoud E.; Barr, Craig; Lupo, Pierpaolo; Cappato, Riccardo; Grace, Andrew A.

doi:10.1056/nejmoa0909545

Cited by 694 publications

(550 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

507

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These transmission ranges are suitable for some communication applications in the thoracic cavity, e.g., wireless sensing for a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (s-ICD) [35], [36]. An implanted cardiovascular pressure monitor integrated with a medical stent [37] could send an alert signal on a wireless interface within 2360-2483.5 MHz to the s-ICD in order to deliver transthoracic shocks when ventricular tachyarrhythmias are detected.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Path Loss Models for In-Body Communications within 2.36-2.5 GHz

Chávez-Santiago

Garcia-Pardo

Fornés-Leal

et al. 2015

IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Path Loss Models for In-Body Communications within 2.36-2.5 GHz

Chávez-Santiago

Garcia-Pardo

Fornés-Leal

et al. 2015

IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…[36][37][38] The subcutaneous ICD recently approved by the FDA allays some but not all of these potential concerns. 39 Although functionally analogous to a traditional ICD, the subcutaneous defibrillator system lacks intracardiac leads and thus avoids the need for vascular access and the potential long-term complications from indwelling intravascular hardware. Still, the subcutaneous ICD shares many of the same hazards as transvenous ICDs, including lead dislodgement (2.5%), skin erosion (1.7%), and infection (5.9%), along with a 13% incidence of inappropriate shocks during follow-up.…”

Section: Defibrillator Technologies and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy for the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death

Piccini¹,

Allen²,

Kudenchuk³

et al. 2016

Circulation

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…28 The frequency of inappropriate delivered shocks can probably be further lowered, both by adaptations from software and hardware. 29,30 Limitations Because this is an observational study without control group, no statements about the benefit of ICD therapy can be made.…”

Section: Inappropriate Icd Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long‐Term Follow‐Up of Prophylactic Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillator–Only Therapy: Comparison of Ischemic and Nonischemic Heart Disease

Smith

Theuns

Çalışkan

et al. 2011

Clinical Cardiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The benefits of primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) are actually debated, as some drawbacks become more apparent and as the natural history of cardiac disease seems to improve. Therefore, contemporary follow‐up data of non‐trial populations treated according to current guidelines remain necessary. The aim of this study was to evaluate mortality and the occurrence of ICD interventions in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) who received in the recent era a primary prophylactic ICD without resynchronization therapy.Hypothesis:Survival and event‐free rates from appropriate ICD therapy are different between ischemic and nonischemic ICD patients.Methods:Prospective cohort study of 427 consecutive primary prevention ICD patients with ischemic or nonischemic heart disease, excluding patients with resynchronization.Results:Ischemic heart disease was present in 290 patients (68%), nonischemic heart disease in 137 patients (32%). During a median follow‐up of 31 months (interquartile range [IQR] 15–45 months), 30 patients (7%) died. Mortality was not different in both disease categories. The incidence of appropriate ICD interventions was similar in CAD and DCM (23% vs 21%). Appropriate ICD intervention occurred more frequently in patients with atrial fibrillation (29% vs 19%). Inappropriate ICD intervention occurred in 11% of patients.Conclusions:The clinical course of ischemic and nonischemic heart disease patients treated with a primary prophylactic ICD is similar with respect to mortality and to appropriate and inappropriate ICD interventions, in spite of a younger age at baseline of the DCM patients. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.This work was partly funded by “het College Voor Zorgverzekeringen” (OP 0864207). Dr. D.A.M.J. Theuns received research grants from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and St. Jude Medical, and he is a consultant to Cameron Health (USA). L. Jordaens received research grants and speaker fees from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cameron Health, Medtronic, Sorin, and St. Jude Medical. T. Smith and K. Caliskan had no funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to declare.

show abstract

An Entirely Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter–Defibrillator

Cited by 694 publications

References 45 publications

Experimental Path Loss Models for In-Body Communications within 2.36-2.5 GHz

Experimental Path Loss Models for In-Body Communications within 2.36-2.5 GHz

Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy for the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death

Long‐Term Follow‐Up of Prophylactic Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillator–Only Therapy: Comparison of Ischemic and Nonischemic Heart Disease

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About