ReviewHerzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie2016
Detection and discrimination of tachycardia in ICDs manufactured by St. Jude Medical.
Review in Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Head-to-Head Comparison of Single- Versus Dual-Chamber ICD Discriminators for Tachyarrhythmia Detection: A Single-Manufacturer, Remote Monitoring-Based Bicentric Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Successful Identification of and Discrimination Between Atrial and Ventricular Arrhythmia with the Aid of Pacing and Defibrillator Devices.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2021Review
- Sensing and Detection Functions in Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2020Review
- Failure to Treat Life-Threatening Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias in Contemporary Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Implications for Strategic Programming.Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Modern implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) systems offer a multitude of algorithms to optimize performance in sensing and tachycardia detection even in difficult circumstances (e. g., ventricular tachycardia during supraventricular tachycardia, fine ventricular fibrillation with intermittent undersensing), to reliably discriminate sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia from noise, nonsustained and supraventricular tachyarrhythmia, and to limit shock therapy only to those arrhythmias that definitely need to be treated by a shock. A disadvantage of these multiple algorithms is the complexity of annotated tracings that makes it sometimes difficult to understand why the ICD did what it did. If a tachycardia classification was wrong, it may be thus difficult to find the best way to reprogram the device to avoid another misclassification. This review explains in detail the algorithms used for tachycardia detection, discrimination, and prevention of inappropriate therapy in single- and dual-chamber ICDs manufactured by St. Jude Medical. Knowledge of these features may help to optimize ICD treatment in patients fitted with these devices.
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.