ArticleHeart rhythm O22026
Initial experience with the extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in pediatric patients.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Retrosternal extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a systematic review of implant characteristics, defibrillation testing, and acute safety.Future cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy for Malignant Ventricular Arrhythmias in a Child with Congenital Long QT Syndrome: A Case Report.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is growing experience worldwide with the extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (EV-ICD). It is a single-lead implantable cardioverter-defibrillator that is implanted behind the sternum and can provide emergency pacing. Objective: We describe the initial experience of 12 implantations in pediatric patients at our hospital. Methods: The data on all Aurora EV-ICD (Medtronic) implantations from a single center from May 2024 to April 2025 were reviewed. Patient demographics, procedural characteristics, complications, outcome data, and device follow-up data were reviewed. The data are presented as medians and ranges. Results: A total of 12 patients underwent implantation of the EV-ICD. The median age at the time of implantation was 14.5 years (9-16 years), and the median weight was 51 kg (27-82 kg). All patients underwent successful implantation. There was 1 pleural lead placement, which was rectified 5 days later; there were no other complications. The median procedure time was 1 hour and 50 minutes (range 1 hour and 43 minutes to 2 hours and 14 minutes), and the median fluoroscopy time was 2 minutes and 12 seconds (range 1 minute and 34 seconds to 3 minutes and 23 seconds). Except for the lead repositioning, no patients required extraction of the device to date, nor have any received inappropriate shocks. Device parameters such as sensing and impedance remained stable over time. Conclusion: The EV-ICD can safely be implanted in pediatric patients with good short-term results. Further studies are required to establish the longer-term safety of the device in young people.
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.