ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2024
Arrhythmia Detection in Atrioventricular, Single-Lead, Floating Atrial Dipole ICD Systems Compared with Conventional Single- and Dual-Chamber Defibrillators.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2024. 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.
- 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
- Head-to-Head Comparison of Single- Versus Dual-Chamber ICD Discriminators for Tachyarrhythmia Detection: A Single-Manufacturer, Remote Monitoring-Based Bicentric Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn atrioventricular defibrillator system with a floating atrial dipole (VDD ICD) can provide atrial sensing by a single lead. Our aim was to compare the arrhythmia detection efficacy of VDD ICDs with conventional single- (VVI) and dual-chamber (DDD) defibrillators.
methodsData from consecutive patients undergoing ICD implantation were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was the incidence of device-detected, new-onset atrial arrhythmias, while secondary endpoints were sensing parameters, complication rates, incidence of appropriate/inappropriate ICD therapy, arrhythmic/heart failure-related hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality.
resultsA total of 256 patients (mean age 64 ± 12 years, male 75%, primary prophylaxis 28%, mean follow-up 3.7 ± 2.4 years) were included (VVI: 93, VDD: 94, DDD: 69). Atrial arrhythmia episodes were detected more frequently by VDD systems compared to VVI ICDs (aHR 7.087; 95% CI 2.371-21.183;
conclusionVDD devices revealed an advantage in atrial arrhythmia detection compared to VVI ICDs and were non-inferior to DDD systems. Their main indication may be closer monitoring in high-risk patients with atrial arrhythmias to help therapy optimization and not the improvement of tachycardia discrimination.
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.