ArticlePediatric cardiology2017
Analysis of Screening Electrocardiogram for the Subcutaneous Defibrillator in Adults with Congenital Heart Disease.
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2017. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Preoperative ECG Screening and Device-Based Vector Analysis in Patients Receiving a Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Author reply: S-ICD eligibilities in adults with congenital heart disease.ESC heart failure · 2021Article
- Eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in adults with congenital heart disease.ESC heart failure · 2021Article
- Cardiac resynchronization and implantable defibrillators in adults with congenital heart disease.Heart failure reviews · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Candidates for the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) are screened using an electrocardiogram (S-ECG) tool to measure appropriate detection. We sought to define the S-ICD candidacy of congenital heart disease patients using the S-ECG tool. We also analyzed the reliability of the (S-ECG) tool between measurers in this population. Patients above the age of 12 and with a diagnosis associated with either a higher incidence of cardiac arrest or vascular access challenges were asked to undergo screening. S-ECGs were then analyzed by a pediatric electrophysiologist, an S-ICD device engineer, and an S-ICD clinical representative for candidacy. Results were compared for interobserver variability and S-ECGs were analyzed by t test to determine variables that differ among passing and failing leads. Thirty-one patients underwent screening. Two of the 31 (6.5%) patients failed S-ICD screening. Analysis of the screening leads demonstrated the highest passing rates using lead III at a 5 mm/mV amplitude setting with 71 and 62% pass rate in the supine and standing positions, respectively. Interobserver analysis correlated well among the three measurers. There was a higher amplitude difference between QRS and T waves among passing versus failing S-ECG. Congenital heart disease patients have acceptable passage rates utilizing the S-ECG algorithm. Interobserver measurements were well correlated and these data suggest that the proximal coil to device (lead III) vector would be best utilized in this patient population. A larger difference between QRS and T wave amplitudes was associated with a higher S-ECG passing rate.
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.