Decision‐making regarding subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator as primary prevention in patients with low ejection fraction

Abstract

BackgroundConventional transvenous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (TV‐ICD) is the standard device used for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Nonetheless its use is associated with lead‐related complications including infection and malfunction. A subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD) offers an alternative option without the need for a transvenous lead but has limitations. The decision to implant a TV‐ICD or S‐ICD in patients with impaired LVEF for primary prevention of SCD is controversial. Several randomised controlled trials and large observational studies have confirmed similar safety and efficacy of S‐ICDs and TV‐ICDs in such population.MethodsA literature review was conducted to compare the outcomes of subcutaneous (S‐ICD) versus transvenous (TV‐ICD) implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators. Databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane were searched for relevant peer‐reviewed articles. Studies were selected based on relevance and quality. Key outcomes like complication rates, efficacy, and patient survival were summarized in a comparative table.ResultsDifferent factors that influence the choice between an TV‐ICD and S‐ICD for primary prevention of SCD in patients with LVEF are highlighted to guide selection of the appropriate device in different patient populations. Moreover, future perspective on the combination of SICD with leadless pacemaker, and the latest development of the extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator are also discussed.ConclusionsS‐ICD offers a safe and efficacious option to primary prevention in reduced ejection fraction. Future development including incorporation of leadless pacemaker will add to the arsenal of choice to protect patients from sudden cardiac death.