Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32866597›Full record

ArticleIndian pacing and electrophysiology journal

Do all patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator need a generator change? A health service evaluation of patients who underwent generator changes from a single tertiary center.

Chun Shing Kwok, Joseph Mayer, Sayed Irfan Kazi, Lec Makiela, Alexandra Anna Rachel Keay, Sadie Bennett, Fozia Zahir Ahmed, Ashish Patwala, Thanh T Phan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian pacing and electrophysiology journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 82% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chun Shing KwokRoyal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, UK; Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Joseph MayerRoyal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Sayed Irfan KaziRoyal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Lec MakielaRoyal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Alexandra Anna Rachel KeayRoyal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Sadie BennettRoyal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Fozia Zahir AhmedDivision of Cardiovascular Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, UK.
Ashish PatwalaRoyal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Thanh T PhanRoyal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Electronic address: Thanh.Phan@uhnm.nhs.uk.
Royal Stoke University Hospital · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe patient characteristics, therapy received and outcomes after one or more implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) generator changes from contemporary practice is not well known.

methodsWe conducted a health service evaluation of patients who underwent ICD implantation and generator change. Patients who had generator changes from February 2016 to October 2019 were identified from our database and electronic records were reviewed for patient characteristics, number of generator changes, receipt of therapy and death.

resultsOur database included 88 patients with a generator change. A total of 22 patients (25.0%) received dual chamber ICD, 10 patients (11.4%) received single chamber ICD, 54 patients (61.3%) received cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator and 2 patients (2.3%) received subcutaneous ICD. A second generator change occurred in 18 patients and a third generator changes was performed in 6 patients. There were 29 deaths and a follow up period of 9.4 ± 2.9 years. From implant to initial generator change 39 patients had appropriate antitachycardia pacing (ATP), 6 patient had inappropriate ATP, 29 patients had appropriate shocks and 5 patients had an inappropriate shock. Between the 1st and 2nd generator change and the 2nd and 3rd there were no cases of inappropriate ATP or shock. Overall, 42 patients out of the 88 had appropriate therapy (47.7%) and 7 patients had inappropriate therapy (8.0%).

conclusionsMost patients with ICDs do not receive therapy and a minority have inappropriate therapy which typically occur before the first generator change as we observed no inappropriate therapy beyond the first generator change.

Indexed as

Generator changeImplantable cardioverter defibrillatorTherapy

Identifiers

PMID32866597
PMCPMC7691778
OpenAlexW3082943011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.