SynthesisClinical cardiology2025
Comparison of Single-Coil Versus Dual-Coil Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Extraction-Related Outcomes.
Synthesis in Clinical cardiology, 2025. 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.
- Lead fragment characteristics and detection by radiographic imaging after heart transplant.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Contemporary issues in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Personalising device therapy.Indian heart journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImplantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) are battery-operated devices used to manage irregular heart rhythms and deliver therapeutic shocks to the heart. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis compares the efficacy and extraction-related outcomes of single-coil versus dual-coil ICDs in view of conflicting data.
methodsSeveral databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, were comprehensively explored dating from inception to April 1, 2024. Data were compared using odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio (HR), and mean differences (MD). A value of p < 0.05 indicated statistical significance.
resultsUltimately, 28 studies were included in this quantitative synthesis. Defibrillation threshold (DFT) indicated statistical superiority in the dual-coil cohort (MD: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07-1.09; p = 0.03). In addition, all-cause mortality was significantly elevated in the dual-coil cohort (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.87-0.97; p = 0.001). Furthermore, implant time was significantly lower in the single-coil group (MD: -7.44; 95% CI: -13.44 to -1.43; p = 0.02). Other outcomes, including first shock efficacy, cardiac mortality, post-extraction major complications, post-extraction procedural success, and post-extraction mortality, did not demonstrate any significant statistical differences.
conclusionIn conclusion, despite the desirable safety profile of single-coil ICDs, the use of dual-coil ICDs continues to hold merit due to their superior efficacy and advanced sensing capabilities, especially in complex cases. In addition, the perceived risk of a greater adverse profile in dual-coil lead extraction can be refuted by preliminary aggregate results generated within this meta-analysis. However, further robust studies are warranted before arriving at a valid conclusion.
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.