ReviewCureus2025
Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: A Systematic Review of Emerging Evidence.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Initial Experience of the Medtronic Aurora Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter in Children in a UK Centre.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Article
- The Two-Device Problem: A Comprehensive Framework for Managing Transvalvular CIED Leads in the Era of Transcatheter Tricuspid Intervention.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are medical devices designed to prevent sudden cardiac death caused by life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. This review aims to investigate the most novel approach via an extravascular lead by exploring preliminary data published in the PubMed, Cochrane, and ScienceDirect databases as of October 2024. An Oxford Level of Evidence was assigned to each paper. Papers rated Level 3B or 4 were included to ensure a high level of scientific rigor, including studies with conflicting findings. This benchmark was selected because the current literature does not include any systematic reviews of the subject (Level 1-3A), and Level 5 provides a poorly supported assessment. Of the 727 initial peer-reviewed records identified, 25 were included in the final analysis: 11 articles and 14 abstracts (including relevant literature regarding preclinical investigations of animal experiments). This data includes prospective trials and observational clinical studies, patient-reported outcome studies, subsequent analyses, and retrospective studies of efficacy, safety, and complications of extravascular ICDs (EV-ICDs) and therapeutic use. This review discusses the expectations from preclinical and clinical applications of EV-ICDs (extracted from both expert opinions and reported patient outcomes) and how certain limitations may be addressed based on the literature. A comprehensive review of complex medical devices is advantageous and enables multifaceted analysis of efficacy. This systematic review revealed that EV-ICDs demonstrate effective sensing, pacing, and defibrillation with high patient acceptance and low complication risk. In comparison with transvenous and subcutaneous ICDs, EV-ICDs provide effective antiarrhythmic action through antitachycardia pacing, safe lead removal, and enhanced long-term performance.
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.