ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2017
Comparison of Inappropriate Shocks and Other Health Outcomes Between Single- and Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Results From the Cardiovascular Research Network Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single vs. dual chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators or programming of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in patients without a bradycardia pacing indication: systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2018Pooled it
- Predictors of Atrial High-Rate Episodes and Inappropriate Device Therapy in Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2026Article
- Arrhythmia Detection in Atrioventricular, Single-Lead, Floating Atrial Dipole ICD Systems Compared with Conventional Single- and Dual-Chamber Defibrillators.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Article
- Clinical Decision Making and Technical Approaches in Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Procedures: A Step by Step Critical Appraisal of Literature.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Single- Versus Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death in the United States.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Article
- The utilization of atrial sensing dipole in single lead implantable cardioverter defibrillator for detection of new-onset atrial high-rate episodes or subclinical atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of arrhythmia · 2022Review
- Trends in Use of Single- vs Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Among Patients Without a Pacing Indication, 2010-2018.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Ventricular arrhythmia management in patients with genetic cardiomyopathies.Heart rhythm O2 · 2021Article
- Temporal Trends of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantations: a Nationwide Population-based Study.Korean circulation journal · 2019Article
- Optimal Strategies to Reduce Inappropriate Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Shocks.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2019Review
- Single-brand dual-chamber discriminators to prevent inappropriate shocks in patients implanted with prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a propensity-weighted comparison of single- and dual-chamber devices.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2019Observational
- Electrical manipulation of the failing heart.Heart failure reviews · 2018Review
- Considering Factors in the Single- Versus Dual-coil Lead Debate.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn US clinical practice, many patients who undergo placement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death receive dual-chamber devices. The superiority of dual-chamber over single-chamber devices in reducing the risk of inappropriate ICD shocks in clinical practice has not been established. The objective of this study was to compare risk of adverse outcomes, including inappropriate shocks, between single- and dual-chamber ICDs for primary prevention. METHODS AND
resultsWe identified patients receiving a single- or dual-chamber ICD for primary prevention who did not have an indication for pacing from 15 hospitals within 7 integrated health delivery systems in the Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators from 2006 to 2009. The primary outcome was time to first inappropriate shock. ICD shocks were adjudicated for appropriateness. Other outcomes included all-cause hospitalization, heart failure hospitalization, and death. Patient, clinician, and hospital-level factors were accounted for using propensity score weighting methods. Among 1042 patients without pacing indications, 54.0% (n=563) received a single-chamber device and 46.0% (n=479) received a dual-chamber device. In a propensity-weighted analysis, device type was not significantly associated with inappropriate shock (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.38 [
conclusionsAmong patients who received an ICD for primary prevention without indications for pacing, dual-chamber devices were not associated with lower risk of inappropriate shock or differences in hospitalization or death compared with single-chamber devices. This study does not justify the use of dual-chamber devices to minimize inappropriate shocks.
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.