Table 2.
Head-to-head comparison of S-ICD versus transvenous (TV) ICD.
| S-ICD | TV-ICD | |
|---|---|---|
| Leads within heart and vessels | NO | YES |
| Implant complications | Low/Negligible | Significant |
| X-Ray exposure | NO | YES |
| Infections | Lower risk More simple to manage | Higher risk Difficult to manage |
| Shock induced myocardial damage | Negligible | Significant |
| Patients suitable for implant | About 90% | Virtually all |
| Inappropriate shocks | 4-25% (TWOS or external noise) | 20-30% (supraventricular tachycardia) |
| Time to shock delivery | 14-20” | 7-9” |
| Pacing capability | NO | YES |
| Antitachycardia pacing | NO | YES |
| Pulse generator size | 69 cc/145 grams | 30 cc/70 grams |
| Battery life span | Up to 5 years | Up to 10 years |
| Costs | High | Medium/Low |
| Home Monitoring | NO | YES |
| Atrial arrhythmias monitoring | NO | YES |