We searched Medline, the Cochrane Library, and other internet sources, without language or date restrictions for articles comparing clinical outcomes between DC-ICDs and SC-ICDs. Studies were selected for inclusion based on the following criteria: Randomised controlled trial.;
Controlled design was used to compare SC-ICDs and DC-ICDs;
Retrospective study if the survival analysis was performed. Efficacy endpoints were mortality, appropriate therapy, inappropriate detection of SVT, inappropriate therapy. Safety endpoints were lead-related complication and all complications. Relative risk (RR) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated, and a χ2-based test of homogeneity was performed.
We identified nine trials (n=2594) with a weighted mean follow-up of 18.9 months. Compared with DC-ICDs, SC-ICDs were associated with a significant reduction in lead complications (RR:3.30; 95% CI: 1.17-9.30; p=0.02). However, both groups had similar rates of mortality (OR: 0.91; 95%CI: 0.91-1.51; p=0.73), appropriate therapy (RR: 0.90; 95%CI: 0.73-1.11; p=0.32), inappropriate detection of SVT (RR: 1.82; 95%CI: 0.71-4.62; p=0.21), inappropriate therapy (RR: 2.08; 95%CI: -0.22-0.19; p=0.86) and all complications (OR: 1.27; 95%CI: 0.19-8.67; p=0.81).
Besides more lead-related complications, DC-ICDs had similar efficacy and all complications as SC-ICDs in secondary sudden cardiac death prevention.