ArticleClinical cardiology2019
Successful defibrillation verification in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients by low-energy shocks.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low defibrillation threshold in pediatric patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Implications for a smaller generator?HeartRhythm case reports · 2026Article
- S-ICD Implantation "Tips and Tricks".Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- State-of-the-art consensus on non-transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy.Clinical cardiology · 2020Review
- Defibrillation testing during implantation of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: a necessary standard or becoming redundant?Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2020Review
- Successful defibrillation verification in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients by low-energy shocks.Clinical cardiology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to the transvenous one. Defibrillation efficacy depends on maximum device output and on the optimal device location at device implantation. HYPOTHESIS: We sought to investigate the defibrillation safety margin in real life clinical practice.
methodsWe sought to understand what is the efficacy of induced ventricular fibrillation (VF) termination at S-ICD implantation using lower energies than the recommended 65 J.
resultsSixty-four consecutive S-ICD recipients underwent VF termination attempts at implantation with energies ranging from 20 to 50 J. Overall, VF termination occurred in 84% of patients with ≤40 J, in 88% with 45 J, and in 100% with 60 J. Intermuscular S-ICD placement was associated with 94% VF termination at ≤40 J. An ejection fraction <35% was associated to higher energy requirement for defibrillation; however, an intermuscular S-ICD placement conferred 90% defibrillation efficacy at 31 ± 5 J in this patients subset.
conclusionsThis is a hypothesis-generating observation that prompts a methodologically correct investigation to prove that a 60 J output S-ICD can provide an adequate safety margin to terminate VF in clinical practice. This would enable superior device longevity and/or device downsizing for pediatric/small size patients.
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.