ArticlePatient preference and adherence2022
Impairment of Quality of Life in Patients with Implanted Subcutaneous Cardioverter Defibrillator (S-ICD) Compared to Implanted Transvenous Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality of Life in Subcutaneous or Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Patients: A Secondary Analysis of the PRAETORIAN Trial.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2024Trial
- Low defibrillation threshold in pediatric patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Implications for a smaller generator?HeartRhythm case reports · 2026Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The subcutaneous cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) has been shown to be a viable alternative to transvenous ICDs (TV-ICD) in all patients at risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) but without pacing indication. Aim: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of therapy with current S-ICD devices on quality of life (QoL) in comparison to patients with TV-ICD devices. Methods: In our single-centre study, 52 consecutive patients with S-ICD and 52 matched patients with TV-ICD were analysed. QoL has been assessed by a standardized questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L, modified). Additionally, clinical baseline and follow-up data were evaluated. Results: Two-thirds of the total study population reported restrictions in daily routine compared to their life before ICD implantation. A total of 27.7% of S-ICD patients stated to expect an improvement of QoL by deactivation or explantation of their defibrillator compared to only 6.4% of patients with TV-ICD ( Limitations: Main limitation of the study is that quality of life was assessed for one single time point only and time since implantation differed significantly between S-ICD and TV-ICD. Furthermore our collective is younger, and, due to the high proportion of patients without cardiomyopathy, the mean EF is better than usual ICD collective. The absence of heart failure in about the half of our patients might have relevant impact on our QoL analysis. Conclusion: A relevant proportion of S-ICD patients expects an improvement of QoL by explantation of the device. Of note, this impression was not driven by the fear of receiving shocks but mainly by discomfort and pain caused by the pulse generator.
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.