ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2013
Incidence and predictors of phantom shocks in implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients.
Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Perceptions and experiences of patients living with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review and meta-synthesis.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2016Pooled it
- Incidence, Risk Factors and Predictors of Phantom Shocks in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: State-of-the-art Review.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2024Review
- Article
- Novel ventricular tachyarrhythmia detection enhancement detects undertreated life-threatening arrhythmias.Heart rhythm O2 · 2022Article
- Effects of renal denervation therapy on cardiac function and malignant arrhythmia in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and narrow QRS complexes treated with implantable cardioverter defibrillator.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
- Phantom Shocks Associated With a Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator.Journal of medical cases · 2021Article
- One size fits all, or do we have to rethink optimal programming in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators implanted for secondary prevention?Heart rhythm O2 · 2020Article
- Phantom shocks in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients: impact of education level, anxiety, and depression.Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2019Article
- 2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on optimal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and testing.Journal of arrhythmia · 2016Article
- Follow-up of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: comparison of coronary artery disease and dilated cardiomyopathy.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2014Article
- State of the art of ICD programming: Lessons learned and future directions.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2014Article
- Phantom shocks: innocent bystander or complication of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy?Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are designed to deliver shocks or antitachycardia pacing (ATP) in the event of ventricular arrhythmias. During follow-up, some ICD recipients experience the sensation of ICD discharge in the absence of an actual discharge (phantom shock). The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and predictors of phantom shocks in ICD recipients.
methodsMedical records of 629 consecutive patients with ischaemic or dilated cardiomyopathy and prior ICD implantation were studied.
resultsWith a median follow-up of 35 months, phantom shocks were reported by 5.1 % of ICD recipients (5.7 % in the primary prevention group and 3.7 % for the secondary prevention group; p=NS). In the combined group of primary and secondary prevention, there were no significant predictors of the occurrence of phantom shocks. However, in the primary prevention group, phantom shocks were related to a history of atrial fibrillation (p=0.03) and NYHA class <III (p=0.05). In the secondary prevention group, there were no significant predictors for phantom shocks.
conclusionPhantom shocks occur in approximately 5 % of all ICD recipients. In primary prevention patients, a relation with a history of atrial fibrillation and NYHA class <III were significant predictors for the occurrence of phantom shocks. In the secondary prevention patients, no significant predictors were found.
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.