ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2018
An Overview of Clinical Outcomes in Transvenous and Subcutaneous ICD Patients.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a second-generation intercostal extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead with a pectoral pulse generator for sensing, defibrillation, and anti-tachycardia pacing.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 · 2025Trial
- Long-Term Follow-Up of the S-ICD: A 10-Years Follow-Up Study of a Large Single Center Cohort.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2025Article
- Bradycardia in Patients with Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillators-An Overestimated Problem? Experience from a Large Tertiary Centre and a Review of the Literature.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- The Role of Subcutaneous ICDs in the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death.US cardiology · 2021Review
- Diagnosis and management of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator infections based on process mapping.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2020Article
- Heart failure management in dialysis patients: Many treatment options with no clear evidence.Seminars in dialysis · 2020 · on this mapReview
- Outcomes in Brugada Syndrome Patients With Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Insights From the SGLT2 Registry.Frontiers in physiology · 2020Article
- Generation of a cohort of whole-torso cardiac models for assessing the utility of a novel computed shock vector efficiency metric for ICD optimisation.Computers in biology and medicine · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewClear guidelines on when to select a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) over a transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) are lacking. This review will provide an overview of the most recent clinical data on S-ICD and TV-ICD therapy by pooling comparison studies in order to aid clinical decision making. RECENT
findingsPooling of observational-matched studies demonstrated an incidence rate ratio (IRR) for device-related complication of 0.90 (95% CI 0.58-1.42) and IRR for lead-related complications of 0.15 (95% CI 0.06-0.39) in favor of S-ICD. The IRR for device infections was 2.00 (95% CI 0.95-4.22) in favor of TV-ICD. Both appropriate shocks (IRR 0.67 (95% CI 0.42-1.06)) and inappropriate shocks (IRR 1.17 (95% CI 0.77-1.79)) did not differ significantly between both groups. With randomized data underway, the observational data demonstrate that the S-ICD is associated with reduced lead complications, but this has not yet resulted in a significant reduction in total number of complications compared to TV-ICDs. New technologies are expected to make the S-ICD a more attractive alternative.
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.