ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2022
A real-world experience of subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardiac defibrillators-comparison with the PRAETORIAN study.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- A real-world experience of subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardiac defibrillators-comparison with the PRAETORIAN study.Journal of arrhythmia · 2022Article
- Clinical outcomes of subcutaneous vs. transvenous implantable defibrillator therapy in a polymorbid patient cohort.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: PRAETORIAN is the first randomized controlled trial that demonstrated the noninferiority of subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) in comparison with transvenous ICD (TV-ICD). We retrospectively reviewed electronic records of patients with ICD implanted over the past 6 years, with the primary objective to compare our real-world single tertiary center experience with the randomized data from the PRAETORIAN study. Methods: Seventy S-ICD patients were compared with 197 TV-ICD patients, from July 2014 to June 2020 retrospectively, over a median period of 1304 days (296-2451 days). Primary composite endpoints included inappropriate shocks and device-related malfunctions. Results: Patients with S-ICD implantation were younger than those who received TV-ICD (mean, 49.7 years vs 63.9 years, Conclusion: Although single-center experience with a small number of S-ICD patients, results of the PRAETORIAN study has been replicated in our real-world experience of S-ICD and TV-ICD implantations across diverse etiologies, indications, and age groups confirming the comparable performance of S-ICD and TV-ICD when implanted in selected patients.
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.