Trial reportEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2023
Epicardial vs. transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators in children.
Trial report in 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, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05349162 (Epicardial Versus Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Children), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
Epicardial Versus Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Children
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes for patients implanted with a cardioverter-defibrillator at <19 years of age: a Swedish national study.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 · 2026Article
- The SIDECAR 2.0 (S-ICD registry in European paediatric and young adult patients with congenital heart defects 2.0): an analysis of European S-ICD clinical practice and its evolution in paediatric patients.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 · 2025Observational
- Electrical device therapy in the paediatric population-age, indications, strategies and limitations.Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2025Review
- Prognosis of pediatric restrictive cardiomyopathy: more severe in sarcomeric variants.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in paediatric patients for primary vs. secondary prevention.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 · 2024Article
- Congenital Long QT Syndrome in Children and Adolescents: A General Overview.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- New Guidelines of Pediatric Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: What Is Changing in Clinical Practice?Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has been increasingly used in children. Both epicardial and transvenous approaches are used, with controversy regarding the best option with no specific recommendations. We aimed to compare outcomes associated with epicardial vs. transvenous ICDs in children. METHODS AND
resultsData were analysed from a retrospective study including all patients <18-year-old implanted with an ICD in a tertiary centre from 2003 to 2021. Outcomes were compared between epicardial and transvenous ICDs. A total of 122 children with an ICD (mean age 11.5 ± 3.8 years, 57.4% males) were enrolled, with 84 (64.1%) epicardial ICDs and 38 (29.0%) transvenous ICDs. Early (<30 days) ICD-related complications were reported in 17 (20.2%) patients with an epicardial ICD vs. 0 (0.0%) with a transvenous ICD (P = 0.002). Over a mean follow-up of 4.8 ± 4.0 years, 25 (29.8%) patients with an epicardial ICD and 9 (23.7%) patients with a transvenous ICD experienced at least one late ICD-related complication [hazard ratio (HR) 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8-4.0]. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead dysfunction occurred in 19 (22.6%) patients with an epicardial ICD vs. 3 (7.9%) with a transvenous ICD (HR 5.7, 95% CI 1.3-24.5) and was associated with a higher incidence of ICD-related reintervention (HR 3.0, 95% CI 1.3-7.0). After considering potential confounders, especially age and weight at implantation, this association was no longer significant (P = 0.112). The freedom from ICD lead dysfunction was greater in patients with pleural coils than in those with epicardial coils (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15-0.96).
conclusionIn children, after a consideration of patient characteristics at implantation, the burden of complications and ICD lead dysfunction appears to be similar in patients with epicardial and transvenous devices. Pleural coils seem to be associated with better outcomes than epicardial coils in this population. CLINICAL
trial registrationNCT05349162.
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.