ArticleCardiology journal2019
The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: A tertiary center experience.
Article in Cardiology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multicentre early experience with totally subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillators in Poland.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study was to evaluate subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) patients with regard to underlying etiology, peri-procedural outcome, appropriate/inappropriate shocks, and complications during follow-up.
methodsAll patients who underwent S-ICD implantation from February 2013 to March 2017 at an academic hospital in Vienna were included. Medical records were examined and follow-up interrogations of devices were conducted.
resultsA total of 79 S-ICD patients (58.2% males) with a mean age of 44.5 ± 17.2 years were followed for a mean duration of 12.8 ± 13.7 months. A majority of patients (58.2%) had S-ICD for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. The most common of the 16 underlying etiologies were ischemic cardiomyopathy, non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, and idiopathic ventricular fibrillation. The lead was implanted to the left sternal border in 96.2% of cases, between muscular layers in 72.2%. Mean implant time was 45 min, 3 patients were induced, and all patients except one were programmed to two zones. Six (7.6%) patients experienced at least one appropriate therapy for ventricular arrhythmias and the time to first event ranged from 1 to 52 months. Seven patients experienced inappropriate shocks due to T-wave oversensing, atrial tachycardia with rapid atrioventricular conduction, external electromagnetic interference, and/or baseline oversensing due to lead movement. Four patients underwent revision for lead repositioning (n = 1), loose device suture (n = 1), and infection (n = 2).
conclusionsWhile S-ICDs are a feasible and effective treatment, issues remain with inappropriate shock and infection.
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.