ArticleHerz2025
[Subcutaneous defibrillator (S-ICD)].
Article in Herz, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Defibrillator treatment should adhere to the guidelines to effectively prevent sudden cardiac death while minimizing all complications. As an entirely extrathoracic system, the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) eliminates the need for intracardiac leads, thus reducing procedural and lead-related complications as well as systemic infections. The evidence across > 5000 participants in randomized trials and registries demonstrates approximately 98% shock conversion with low complication rates. The PRAETORIAN study demonstrated that the S‑ICD is not inferior to the transvenous ICD (TV-ICD), long-term and secondary analyses indicate fewer severe, particularly lead-related, complications with S‑ICD treatment. Studies such as UNTOUCHED, EFFORTLESS, and PAS confirm its shock effectiveness and safety profile in routine clinical care, while the ATLAS study reports significantly fewer perioperative lead-related complications in younger patients. The procedure has been streamlined and standardized, incorporating best practices such as preoperative vector screening, a two-incision technique, intermuscular/submuscular pocket creation, and dual-zone programming with morphology/high-pass filtering. In the absence of indications for bradypacing, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) or antitachycardia pacing (ATP), the S‑ICD should be considered a routine option in the clinical routine, especially for younger patients, those prone to infections, those with limited venous access and individuals with hereditary arrhythmia syndromes.
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.