ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2025
Rates of and Indications for Subcutaneous ICD Extraction: A Multihospital Healthcare System Analysis.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Implantable Defibrillators: Which Is the Best Device for Each Patient?Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) is an alternative to a transvenous ICD in patients who meet the criteria for ICD implantation without concurrent need for cardiac pacing. The objective of this study is to examine the rates of and indications for S-ICD removal and extraction.
methodsA retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent S-ICD implantation between 2010 and 2022 at a single multihospital healthcare system was performed. The primary endpoint was S-ICD removal or extraction. Patient and device characteristics were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Univariate and multivariate analyses were completed to determine factors associated with S-ICD extraction.
resultsA total of 372 patients (69.5% male; 48.6 ± 14.4 years old) underwent S-ICD implantation during the study period. There were 22 (5.9%) patients (81.8% male; 52.1 ± 13.2 years old) who underwent S-ICD extraction over a median follow-up period of 4.4 [2.0-6.5] years. The median length of time between implantation and extraction was 39.6 [8.3-64.6] months. The most common indications for S-ICD extraction were the need for bradycardia pacing (frequency among extractions, 18.2%), infection (22.7%), and inappropriate shocks due to oversensing (22.7%). A smoking history and higher body mass index were independently associated with S-ICD extraction.
conclusionsThe overall rate of S-ICD extraction over 4.4 [2.0-6.5] years was 5.9%, with the most common indications for extraction being the need for bradycardia pacing, infection, and inappropriate shocks due to oversensing. A smoking history and high body mass index are associated with increased rates of S-ICD extraction. With appropriate patient selection for the S-ICD, the need to remove the device after implantation is low.
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.