ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2019
Determinants of inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks: the German Device Registry perspective.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictors of Atrial High-Rate Episodes and Inappropriate Device Therapy in Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2026Article
- New Diseases Related to Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices (CIEDs): An Overview.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the present study, we have focused upon rates and clinical determinants of inappropriate shock (IS) after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).
methodsData were collected prospectively in the German Device II Registry.
resultsA total of 783 patients were included. Three sub-groups were identified: non-shock (NS) included 725 patients (92.6%), IS 24 (3.1%), and appropriate shock (AS) 34 (4.3%). IS patients were younger (AS 68 (58-77); IS 59 (51-68); NS 66 (56-75) years; p = 0.03), had been mainly referred for primary prophylaxis (AS 42.4%; IS 70.8%; NS 67.3%; p = 0.01), had a higher resting heart rate (AS 70 (63-80); IS 80 (71-98); NS 70 (60-81) BPM; p = 0.003), had more often atrial fibrillation (AF) (AS 14.7%; IS 45.8%; NS 18.8%; p = 0.006), and shorter QRS duration (AS 100 (90-120); IS 95 (90-100); NS 120 (98-150) msec.; p = 0.001). VVI-ICD was more common in IS (AS 64.7%; IS 83.3%; NS 49.8%; p = 0.002). At a follow-up of 18.2 months (75% IQR 13.6-22.4), no deaths were observed in the IS group, one (2.9%) in the AS, and 36 (4.9%) in the NS (p = 0.9). At logistic regression, VVI-ICD implantation was the strongest IS independent determinant (OR 5.0; 95% CI 1.6-15.9; p = 0.004) together with age < 70 years (OR 4.6; CI 1.4-14.7; p = 0.009), AF at time of ICD implantation (OR 3.5; CI 1.3-9.1; p = 0.01), and resting heart rate > 70/min (OR 2.8; CI 1.0-7.3; p = 0.03).
conclusionIn a contemporary setting, some specific conditions such as VVI-ICD, younger age, and faster resting heart rates remain important IS determinants after ICD implantation.
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.