ReviewArrhythmia & electrophysiology review2022
The ATLAS Randomised Clinical Trial: What do the Superiority Results Mean for Subcutaneous ICD Therapy and Sudden Cardiac Death Prevention as a Whole?
Review in Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Totally Fluoroless Versus Limited Fluoroscopy-assisted Implantation: Identifying the Role of Fluoroscopy During Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Implantation.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2025Article
- Cardiovascular Diseases: From Basic Research to Clinical Application.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation in the Presence of Substernal Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator.JACC. Case reports · 2025Article
- Noninvasive Impedance Analysis During S-ICD Insertion Provides Justification for Defibrillation Based Testing Deferment.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2025Article
- Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2024Article
- Implantable Cardiac Devices in Patients with Brady- and Tachy-Arrhythmias: An Update of the Literature.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Tachycardia Therapies: Past, Present and Future Directions.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
- Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator: A Contemporary Overview.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Paradigm Shifts in Cardiac Pacing: Where Have We Been and What Lies Ahead?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review sets out the key evidence comparing subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICDs) and transvenous ICDs and uses it to empower clinical cardiologists and those who implant ICDs to make optimum patient selections for S-ICD use. The evidence demonstrates that clinical trials performed until recently have proven the performance of S-ICDs. However, the latest data now available from the ATLAS randomised controlled trial have added new insights to this body of evidence. ATLAS demonstrates the superiority of S-ICDs over transvenous ICDs regarding lead-related complications, findings that point to promising opportunities for patients who are at risk of sudden cardiac death.
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.