ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Safety and Performance of the Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Detection Algorithm INSIGHT
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac implantable electronic device upgrades and downgrades: a Clinical Consensus Statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Association (APHRS), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS), Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS).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 · 2025Article
- Cephalic Vein Cutdown Is Superior to Subclavian Puncture as Venous Access for Patients with Cardiac Implantable Devices after Long-Term Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of the S-ICD is limited by its inability to provide backup pacing. Combined use of the S-ICD with a pacemaker may be a good choice in certain situations, yet current experience concerning the compatibility is limited. The goal of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of the S-ICD in patients with a pacemaker.
methodsA total of 74 consecutive patients with a bipolar pacemaker were prospectively enrolled. First, surface rhythm strips were recorded in all possible pacemaker stimulation modes, to screen for T-wave oversensing (TWOS). Second, a S-ICD functional dummy was placed epicutaneously on the patient in the typical implant position. The same standardized pacing protocol was used as mentioned above, and every stimulation mode was recorded via S-ECG in all vectors.
resultsIn 16 patients (21.6%), programmed stimulation would have led to VT/VF detection. Triggered episodes were due to counting of the pacing spike(s), QRS complex, premature ventricular contractions, and/or additional TWOS. Three cases triggered in the bipolar stimulation mode. Oversensing was associated with lung emphysema and a reduced QRS amplitude in the S-ECG.
conclusionThe combination of an S-ICD and a pacemaker may lead to inadequate shock delivery due to oversensing, even under programmed bipolar stimulation. Oversensing cannot be sufficiently predicted by the screening tool in pacemaker patients. Testing with an epicutaneous S-ICD dummy in all vectors and stimulation settings is recommended in patients with pre-existing pacemakers.
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.