ArticleHeart and vessels2023
Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator among drug-induced type-1 ECG pattern Brugada syndrome: a propensity score matching analysis from IBRYD study.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fever, Syncope, and the Brugada Dilemma: Navigating the Complexities of ICD Decision-Making in an Atypical Presentation.Case reports in cardiology · 2025Article
- Clinical performance of subcutaneous vs. transvenous implantable defibrillator in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy:Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- When the dual-chamber pacing system is the optimal choice for Brugada patients in need of implantable cardiac defibrillator.European heart journal. Case reports · 2024Article
- Deep learning-based prediction of major arrhythmic events in dilated cardiomyopathy: A proof of concept study.PloS one · 2024Article
- The Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: A Patient Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Modern subcutaneous implantable defibrillator therapy in patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies: data from a large multicentre registry.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- Appropriate and inappropriate therapies in patients with Brugada syndrome. What to expect? Authors' reply.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- Syncope without prodromes during fever in type 1-induced BrS patient: Looks can be deceiving.Journal of arrhythmia · 2023Article
- The Prognostic Role of Programmed Ventricular Stimulation in the Risk Stratification of Sudden Cardiac Death.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Case report: State-of-the-art risk-modifying treatment of sudden cardiac death in an asymptomatic patient with a mutation in the SCN5A gene and a review of the literature.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
22 authors at 18 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
No real-world data are available about the complications rate in drug-induced type 1 Brugada Syndrome (BrS) patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Aim of our study is to compare the device-related complications, infections, and inappropriate therapies among drug-induced type 1 BrS patients with transvenous- ICD (TV-ICD) versus subcutaneous-ICD (S-ICD). Data for this study were sourced from the IBRYD (Italian BRugada sYnDrome) registry which includes 619 drug-induced type-1 BrS patients followed at 20 Italian tertiary referral hospitals. For the present analysis, we selected 258 consecutive BrS patients implanted with ICD. 198 patients (76.7%) received a TV-ICD, while 60 a S-ICD (23.4%). And were followed-up for a median time of 84.3 [46.5-147] months. ICD inappropriate therapies were experienced by 16 patients (6.2%). 14 patients (7.1%) in the TVICD group and 2 patients (3.3%) in S-ICD group (log-rank P = 0.64). ICD-related complications occurred in 31 patients (12%); 29 (14.6%) in TV-ICD group and 2 (3.3%) in S-ICD group (log-rank P = 0.41). ICD-related infections occurred in 10 patients (3.88%); 9 (4.5%) in TV-ICD group and 1 (1.8%) in S-ICD group (log-rank P = 0.80). After balancing for potential confounders using the propensity score matching technique, no differences were found in terms of clinical outcomes between the two groups. In a real-world setting of drug-induced type-1 BrS patients with ICD, no significant differences in inappropriate ICD therapies, device-related complications, and infections were shown among S-ICD vs TV-ICD. However, a reduction in lead-related complications was observed in the S-ICD group. In conclusion, our evidence suggests that S-ICD is at least non-inferior to TV-ICD in this population and may also reduce the risk of lead-related complications which can expose the patients to the necessity of lead extractions.
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.