ArticleHeart rhythm2020
Validating defibrillation simulation in a human-shaped phantom.
Article in Heart rhythm, 2020. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Additional coils mitigate elevated defibrillation threshold in right-sided implantable cardioverter defibrillator generator placement: a simulation study.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 · 2023Article
- A Cardiac Shape Model for Segmentation Uncertainty Quantification.Computing in cardiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe previously developed a computational model to aid clinicians in positioning implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), especially in the case of abnormal anatomies that commonly arise in pediatric cases. We have validated the model clinically on the body surface; however, validation within the volume of the heart is required to establish complete confidence in the model and improve its use in clinical settings.
objectiveThe goal of this study was to use an animal model and thoracic phantom to record the ICD potential field within the heart and on the torso to validate our defibrillation simulation system.
methodsWe recorded defibrillator shock potentials from an ICD suspended together with an animal heart in a human-shaped torso tank and compared them with simulated values. We also compared the scaled distribution threshold, an analog to the defibrillation threshold, calculated from the measured and simulated electric fields within the myocardium.
resultsICD potentials recorded on the tank and cardiac surface and within the myocardium agreed well with those predicted by the simulation. A quantitative comparison of the recorded and simulated potentials yielded a mean correlation of 0.94 and a relative error of 19.1%. The simulation can also predict scaled distribution thresholds similar to those calculated from the measured potential fields.
conclusionWe found that our simulation could predict potential fields with high correlation with the measured values within the heart and on the torso surface. These results support the use of this model for the optimization of ICD placements.
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.