ArticleJACC. Case reports2025
Early Failure of Subcutaneous ICD in a Patient With a Variant of Rapidly Progressive ARVC.
Article in JACC. Case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) is a validated alternative to a transvenous ICD for patients without pacing indications. However, limited data exist regarding its safety and efficacy in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC). CASE SUMMARY: A 21-year-old man was referred after a syncope during a sport event. A 12-lead electrocardiogram showed repolarization abnormalities, and cardiac magnetic resonance demonstrated right ventricular dilatation, biventricular dysfunction, and fibrosis compatible with a diagnosis of ARVC. An S-ICD was implanted after successful preimplant screening. Genetic testing identified a known pathogenic plakophilin-2 variant. The patient received an S-ICD. At 18 months, lead noise, undersensing, and oversensing occurred because of reduced QRS amplitude. Imaging confirmed disease progression. The S-ICD was explanted and replaced by a transvenous ICD. The patient was referred for heart transplant evaluation. DISCUSSION: Our case represents a phenotype variant of ARVC with failure of the S-ICD system due to a temporal change in QRS amplitude over a short period of time. Advanced discrimination algorithms on the S-ICD may not be sufficient to prevent device failure. Cardiac magnetic resonance and genetic testing could eventually play a major role in the selection of a device in patients with ARVC. TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: This case illustrates S-ICD failure associated with rapidly progressive ARVC, underscoring the need for close follow-up and tailored device selection in this population.
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.