ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2023
Single- Versus Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death in the United States.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hospitalization profiles and complications across ICD and CRT-D implantations in Germany: data from the VIDEO study.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Bradycardia-Induced Monomorphic VT in Dilated Cardiomyopathy: Insights From ICD Upgrade Cases.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- Atrial lead entanglement during transcatheter mitral valve-in-ring implantation in patient with dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: case report.European heart journal. Case reports · 2026Article
- Implantable Defibrillators: Which Is the Best Device for Each Patient?Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2025Review
- New-Onset Device-Detected Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Atrial Floating Dipole Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison With Conventional Dual-Chamber Systems.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Routine addition of an atrial lead during an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, in patients without pacing indications, was not shown beneficial in contemporary studies. We aimed to investigate the use and safety of single- versus dual-chamber ICD implantations in these patients. Methods and Results Using the National Inpatient Sample database, we identified patients with no pacing indications who underwent primary-prevention ICD implantation in the United States between 2015 and 2019. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, as well as in-hospital complications, were analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of in-hospital complications. An estimated total of 15 940 patients, underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death during the study period, 8860 (55.6%) received a dual-chamber ICD. The mean age was 64 years, and 66% were men. In-hospital complication rates in the dual-chamber ICD and single-chamber ICD group were 12.8% and 10.7%, respectively (
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.