ReviewIndian heart journal
Contemporary issues in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Personalising device therapy.
Review in Indian heart journal. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICDs) have undergone substantial evolution since the 1980s, with the aim of decreasing sudden cardiac death, whilst minimising device related complications. Traditional transvenous ICDs (TV-ICDs), though comprehensive and effective, are associated with risks with having leads inside the veins and heart. The emergence of the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) offered a solution for patients without a pacing indication, significantly reducing the risks of complications acutely and long term. The absence of pacing and need for specific ECG requirements limit its usability for all ICD patients. The extravascular ICD (EV-ICD) has attempted to provide a solution using a substernal lead position and warrants further investigation into its usability. Recent innovations of modular ICD therapy, combining the S-ICD with a leadless pacemaker, that communicate to deliver painless anti-tachycardia pacing and single chamber pacing could be the comprehensive solution. This review examines the strengths and limitations of these ICD technologies, drawing on current available data in 2025. We critically appraise the literature and discuss perspectives on recent evidence in ICD studies. As technology advances, the selection of the type of ICD should be guided by the risk and benefit, particularly with the perceived lower benefit from more modern medical management and programming. Patients should be fully informed of the risks and benefits of devices that they are being offered, guided by evidence. With the expanding capabilities of modern ICDs and remote monitoring, the future of ICD therapy maybe increasingly customisable and tailored for the individual.
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.