ArticleHerz2021
[Perioprocedural mortality after ICD implantation].
Article in Herz, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Do Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Prevent Sudden Cardiac Death in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients on Dialysis?Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Big Data in electrophysiology.Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) represent an established treatment in preventing sudden cardiac death in patients with indications for primary or secondary prophylaxis. As for all complex surgical procedures there remains a risk for the occurrence of complications including death also for ICD implantation. The aim of the present study was to analyze the procedure-related mortality in patients after ICD implantation using the data from the obligatory quality assurance program in North-Rhine/Westphalia.
methodsData of all 18,625 patients from the quality assurance datasets who underwent ICD implantation in the years 2010-2012 were analyzed.
resultsDuring the in-hospital stay 118 patients (0.6%) died after ICD implantation. Patients > 80 years old had a higher mortality (1.9% vs. 0.5% in patients < 80 years old, p < 0.001) as well as women (0.95% vs. 0.54% in men, p = 0.004) and patients with higher New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (0.3% for NYHA II, 0.7% for NYHA III, 3.4% for NYHA IV, p < 0.001 for all comparisons). The presence of diabetes mellitus (23% of the collective) did not influence the perioperative mortality, whereas renal failure requiring dialysis showed a significantly increased mortality (p < 0.001 compared to patients with creatinine ≤ 1.5 mg/dl and p = 0.002 for patients with creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl not requiring dialysis). Patients with indications for ICD secondary prophylaxis had a significantly higher mortality (1.2% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001), which increased from 0.6% to 3.7% (p < 0.001) with the occurrence of complications.
conclusionThe procedure-related mortality after ICD implantation is increased in patients over 80 years of age, higher NYHA class, patients requiring dialysis, in secondary prevention indications and after the occurrence of perioperative complications.
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.