ArticleHerz2019
Intermuscular implantation technique for subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillators.
Article in Herz, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasound-guided intermuscular pocket creation for a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.HeartRhythm case reports · 2022Article
- State-of-the-art consensus on non-transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy.Clinical cardiology · 2020Review
- The Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator: New Features and Implant Techniques and Future Developments.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe conventional technique for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation has been associated with pocket complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an alternative intermuscular technique for S‑ICD implantation.
methodsS-ICDs were implanted in ten consecutive patients (ten males, mean age: 46.8 ± 14.7 years). The pocket for the pulse generator was made above the serratus anterior muscular fascia and beneath the latissimus dorsi muscle by detaching the fibrous tissue between the muscles. Electrode implantation was performed using the three- (n = 4) or the two-incision technique (n = 6).
resultsAll S‑ICDs were successfully implanted in the absence of any procedure-related complications with a successful 65-J standard polarity defibrillation threshold testing, apart from one patient with Brugada syndrome who needed device repositioning more dorsally. During a mean follow-up of 16.5 ± 7.3 months, no major complications requiring surgical repair were encountered, while patients demonstrated high levels of comfort and satisfaction with the cosmetic result. One patient experienced an inappropriate shock due to noise detection, which was resolved after reprogramming to a different sensing vector.
conclusionThe intermuscular technique is a safe and efficacious approach for S‑ICD implantation. This technique could lead to fewer pocket-related complications and better cosmetic results.
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.