ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2020
Comparison of the performance of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads among manufacturers.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of generator replacement and other device procedures on timing of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead removal.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Why and When ICD Leads Are Extracted: Does the ICD Lead Model Influence Lead Survival?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Remarkably high and accelerating failure rate of a widely used implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead: A large-scale manufacturer-independent multicenter study with long accurate follow-up.Heart rhythm O2 · 2024Article
- Cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead safety: Harnessing real-world remote monitoring data for medical device evaluation.Heart rhythm · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeads are often considered the weakest link in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) systems, and lead dysfunction is a major concern for ICD recipients. The aim of this study was to compare the lead performance from three different manufacturers.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients who underwent ICD system implantation at Chiba University Hospital, Japan, between March 2008 and September 2017. The following leads were implanted in our center: Durata (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA, now Abbott) (n = 105), Linox and Linox
resultsA total of 297 ICD leads were analyzed. Failure rates for Durata, Linox/Linox
conclusionsIn this single-center retrospective study, the performance of Sprint Quattro was lower than the performance of Linox/Linox
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.