ArticlePacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2025
Defibrillation Testing in Patients Undergoing Replacement of the S-ICD Generator: Is There Still a Need?
Article in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 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.
- Long-Term Follow-Up of the S-ICD: A 10-Years Follow-Up Study of a Large Single Center Cohort.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNoninferiority of omitting intraoperative defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing has been documented for transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) whereas data for the subcutaneous-ICD (S-ICD) regarding the need for DFT testing, especially during S-ICD generator replacement, is not available.
methodsA total of 112 consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD generator replacement and routine testing were included in this retrospective single-center study and analyzed regarding the outcome of intraoperative DFT.
resultsThe majority of patients (87.3%) were successfully tested during generator replacement with no major adverse events. PREATORIAN score was generally lower, while high voltage (HV) impedance increased compared to first implantation. The risk of conversion failure increased with the PRAETORIAN risk class, whereas patient characteristics did not impact conversion rates. PRAETORIAN score and HV impedance were shown to be the most accurate factors when predicting conversion failure. In all patients with an HV impedance <70 Ohm and a PREATORIAN score < 90 at the time of initial implantation DFT was successfully performed during generator replacement.
conclusionGeneral omittance of DFT in S-ICD generator replacement is not advisable. New algorithms for low impedance DFT measurements during S-ICD query and PREATORIAN score at first implantation can be used to predict conversion failure. An impedance <70 Ohm and a PRAETORIAN score < 90 show a very low risk of conversion failure. In patients with a PRAETORIAN score > 150 DFT testing should be performed when the S-ICD generator is replaced until randomized data is available.
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.