ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Clinical outcomes of subcutaneous vs. transvenous implantable defibrillator therapy in a polymorbid patient cohort.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and safety of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator in patients with and without obesity: An international, bicentric retrospective registry.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- A review of the extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator system: technology, development, clinical outcomes, and global experience.Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2025Review
- Extracellular Matrix Proteins Improve Risk Prediction in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Impact of atrial fibrillation on 1-year outcome in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator: results from the German DEVICE Registry.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has been designed to overcome lead-related complications and device endocarditis. Lacking the ability for pacing or resynchronization therapy its usage is limited to selected patients at risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD). Objective: The aim of this single-center study was to assess clinical outcomes of S-ICD and single-chamber transvenous (TV)-ICD in an all-comers population. Methods: The study cohort comprised a total of 119 ICD patients who underwent either S-ICD ( Results: The median age of the study population was 66.0 years, 22.7% of the patients were female. The underlying heart disease was ischemic cardiomyopathy (61.4%) with a median LVEF of 30%. Only 52.9% had received an ICD for primary prevention, most of the patients (67.3%) had advanced heart failure (NYHA class II-III) and 16.8% were in atrial fibrillation. CCI was 5 points in TV-ICD patients vs. 4 points for patients with S-ICD ( Conclusion: Clinical outcomes of the S-ICD and TV-ICD revealed no differences in the composite endpoint including survival, freedom of hospitalization and device-associated events, even after careful adjustment for potential confounders. Moreover, the CCI was evaluated in a S-ICD cohort demonstrating higher survival rates than predicted by the CCI in young, polymorbid (S-)ICD 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.