ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2020
Single chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator compared to dual chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator: less is more! Data from the German Device Registry.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of Single-Coil Versus Dual-Coil Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Extraction-Related Outcomes.Clinical cardiology · 2025Pooled it
- Bradycardia-Induced Monomorphic VT in Dilated Cardiomyopathy: Insights From ICD Upgrade Cases.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- Comparison of Single- vs. Dual-Lead CIEDs Regarding Perioperative Complications-Analysis of the Quality Assurance Data of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Digitalis Therapy Is Associated With an Increased Risk of ICD Shock Delivery and Device Revision.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2025Article
- Resting heart rate assessed within clinical practice demonstrates no prognostic relevance for defibrillator recipients in the German DEVICE registry.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Big Data in electrophysiology.Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2022Review
- Article
- Distribution and impact of age in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators regarding early complications and 1-year clinical outcome: results from the German Device Registry.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2021Article
- Are atrial high rate episodes (AHREs) a precursor to atrial fibrillation?Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2020Review
- Implantable cardioverter defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy use in New Zealand (ANZACS-QI 33).Journal of arrhythmia · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn patients with high risk for sudden cardiac death the implantation of a defibrillator is an established treatment. However the benefits and risks for patients in accordance to the number of the leads are not clear. Even in the current guidelines a recommendation to this question is missing. We analyzed advantage and disadvantages of single-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (VVI-ICD) versus dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (DDD-ICD) in the prospective German Device Registry.
methodsThe data of 2240 patients who underwent ICD implantation in 45 German Centers between January 2007 and March 2011 were included in a prospective device registry (VVI: n = 1629, male = 1358, EF = 34% ± 13%; DDD: n = 611, male = 491, EF = 35% ± 14%).
resultsThe in-hospital complications were significantly higher in the DDD-ICD group with higher revision/device complication rates (3.0% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.003) but also higher mortality rate (1.0% vs. 0.1%; p < 0.001). Regarding the adjusted data at 1-year follow-up DDD-ICD caused more device revisions, but no difference in rehospitalization and mortality.
conclusionIt is still unclear whether DDD-ICD may be beneficial for patients with preserved sinus and atrioventricular nodal function. Our data show that the decision of the operator to choose a DDD-ICD in these patients must be taken very carefully. By choosing a DDD-ICD the patient is exposed to a significantly higher periprocedural complication rate and higher in-hospital mortality. In absence of relevant bradycardias implantation of a DDD-ICD is not justified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31823040What 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.