ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2018
Right versus left parasternal electrode position in the entirely subcutaneous ICD.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Atrial and Dual-Chamber Leadless Pacing on Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Screening Eligibility.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Article
- Comparison of Preoperative ECG Screening and Device-Based Vector Analysis in Patients Receiving a Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- S-ICD Implantation "Tips and Tricks".Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in adults with congenital heart disease.ESC heart failure · 2021Article
- Article
- Eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in congenital heart disease.Heart rhythm · 2020Article
- To the Editor- Strategy for revision of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator following inappropriate shock.HeartRhythm case reports · 2019Article
- Prognostic impact of recurrences of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and appropriate ICD therapies in a high-risk ICD population.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2019Article
- Prognostic impact of chronic kidney disease and renal replacement therapy in ventricular tachyarrhythmias and aborted cardiac arrest.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD
methodsBetween June 2010 and May 2016, 120 S-ICD
resultsPatients with an RP electrode did not differ in terms of age, sex, or ejection fraction. A statistically significant difference in underlying cardiac disease was observed between the RP and LP electrode group, with more patients with channelopathies in the RP electrode group and more patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy in the LP electrode group. During a mean follow-up of 24.3 ± 19.5 months, 27 appropriate (19 in the LP group and 8 in the RP group) and 28 inappropriate (18 LP and 10 RP) ICD shocks occurred (p value = NS).
conclusionsIn the present study, an RP electrode position was chosen on the basis of chest radiographic characteristics and was efficient in terms of sensing and shock efficacy. Thus, a right-sided electrode implant might be an alternative if a left-sided electrode implant is inadequate. It might also be favorable for young patients with narrow heart silhouettes in the midsagittal position.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29285623What 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.