Trial reportPloS one2015
ICD Shock, Not Ventricular Fibrillation, Causes Elevation of High Sensitive Troponin T after Defibrillation Threshold Testing--The Prospective, Randomized, Multicentre TropShock-Trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01230086 (hs Troponin Release in Relation to Different ICD-Implantation Procedures), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 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.
hs Troponin Release in Relation to Different ICD-Implantation Procedures
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electrical cardioversion of patients with implanted pacemaker or cardioverter-defibrillator: results of a survey of german centers and systematic review of the literature.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2018Pooled it
- Myocardial Minimal Damage After Rapid Ventricular Pacing - the prospective randomized multicentre MyDate-Trial.Scientific reports · 2020Trial
- Pacemaker Implantation Associated Myocardial Micro-Damage: A Randomised Comparison between Active and Passive Fixation Leads.Scientific reports · 2018Trial
- Troponin release and mechanism-dependent myocardial injury in a lightning-induced mass casualty incident.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Predictors of Atrial High-Rate Episodes and Inappropriate Device Therapy in Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2026Article
- Ventricular arrhythmias and the role of antitachycardia pacing in patients with electrical heart disease and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease · 2025Article
- Relationship between Exercise Test Parameters, Device-Delivered Electric Shock and Adverse Clinical Events in Patients with an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator for Primary Prevention.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Progressive giant cell myocarditis presenting with inappropriate shocks from a subcutaneous defibrillator.HeartRhythm case reports · 2022Article
- An in-silico assessment of efficacy of two novel intra-cardiac electrode configurations versus traditional anti-tachycardia pacing therapy for terminating sustained ventricular tachycardia.Computers in biology and medicine · 2021Article
- Release of high-sensitive TROPonin T by implantation of an entirely subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator compared to a conventional transvenous approach: the TROPIC registry.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2021Article
- The Defibrillation Conundrum: New Insights into the Mechanisms of Shock-Related Myocardial Injury Sustained from a Life-Saving Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Acute pathophysiological myocardial changes following intra-cardiac electrical shocks using a proteomic approach in a sheep model.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Defibrillation testing during implantation of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: a necessary standard or becoming redundant?Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2020Review
- Electrical Storm: Current Evidence, Clinical Implications, and Future Perspectives.Current cardiology reports · 2019Review
- Influence of Multimorbidity on Burden and Appropriateness of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapies.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2019Article
- Effects of defibrillation shock in patients implanted with a subcutaneous defibrillator: a biomarker study.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2018Observational
- Acute Effects of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Shocks on Biomarkers of Myocardial Injury, Apoptosis, Heart Failure, and Systemic Inflammation.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2017Article
- del Nido versus St. Thomas Cardioplegia Solutions: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis of Post Cross-Clamp Defibrillation Rates.The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 2016Article
- 2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on optimal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and testing.Journal of arrhythmia · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe placement of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has become routine practice to protect high risk patients from sudden cardiac death. However, implantation-related myocardial micro-damage and its relation to different implantation strategies are poorly characterized.
methodsA total of 194 ICD recipients (64±12 years, 83% male, 95% primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, 35% cardiac resynchronization therapy) were randomly assigned to one of three implantation strategies: (1) ICD implantation without any defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing, (2) estimation of the DFT without arrhythmia induction (modified "upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) testing") or (3) traditional safety margin testing including ventricular arrhythmia induction. High-sensitive Troponin T (hsTnT) levels were determined prior to the implantation and 6 hours after.
resultsAll three groups showed a postoperative increase of hsTnT. The mean delta was 0.031±0.032 ng/ml for patients without DFT testing, 0.080±0.067 ng/ml for the modified ULV-testing and 0.064±0.056 ng/ml for patients with traditional safety margin testing. Delta hsTnT was significantly larger in both of the groups with intraoperative ICD testing compared to the non-testing strategy (p≤0.001 each). There was no statistical difference in delta hsTnT between the two groups with intraoperative ICD testing (p = 0.179).
conclusionHigh-sensitive Troponin T release during ICD implantation is significantly higher in patients with intraoperative ICD testing using shock applications compared to those without testing. Shock applications, with or without arrhythmia induction, did not result in a significantly different delta hsTnT. Hence, the ICD shock itself and not ventricular fibrillation seems to cause myocardial micro-damage.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01230086.
Indexed as
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.