ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2025
New-Onset Device-Detected Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Atrial Floating Dipole Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison With Conventional Dual-Chamber Systems.
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. It is linked to trial NCT04869527 (Simplifying Access to Full Early Atrial Diagnostics in Single Chamber ICD Patients Using the DX Lead and Continuous Home Monitoring in Brazil), which is not on this 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.
Simplifying Access to Full Early Atrial Diagnostics in Single Chamber ICD Patients Using the DX Lead and Continuous Home Monitoring in Brazil
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-Term Outcomes of Leadless Pacemaker vs. Transvenous Pacemaker in End-Stage Renal Disease.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Article
- 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
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDevice-detected subclinical atrial fibrillation (DDAF) is a significant risk factor for major cardiovascular events, especially in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients. The DX ICD, which utilizes a single ventricular lead with a floating atrial dipole, has demonstrated superior performance in diagnosing DDAF compared to conventional single-lead ICDs. However, comparisons between DX and dual-chamber (DDD) ICDs for atrial monitoring are limited.
objectiveTo compare the incidence of newly detected DDAF in patients without an indication for atrial pacing who received either a DX or a standard DDD ICD.
methodsRemote transmissions from the Italian Home Monitoring Expert Alliance dataset were analyzed. DDAF incidence for different burden cutoffs ( ≥ 15 min, ≥ 6 h, and ≥ 24 h) was compared between groups using propensity score (PS) matching to adjust for baseline characteristics.
resultsIn a cohort of 1329 patients (527 with DX ICD and 802 with DDD ICD), 30.7% experienced DDAF lasting ≥ 15 min, 22.3% ≥ 6 h, and 14.0% ≥ 24 h during a median follow-up of 4.5 years. DDAF incidence was lower in the DX ICD group for all burden cutoffs (p < 0.0001). However, after PS matching, DDAF rates were similar between groups, with no significant differences (p ≥ 0.36). Multivariate analysis identified age and 1-month right ventricular pacing percentage as predictors of DDAF across all burden cutoffs, with no effect based on device type or programmed basic rate.
conclusionIn patients without atrial pacing indication or history of clinical atrial fibrillation at implantation, the DX ICD demonstrated DDAF detection capabilities comparable to DDD ICDs in a real-world setting.
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.