ArticleEuropean heart journal. Case reports2026
One short circuit, two novel subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillator complications.
Article in European heart journal. Case reports, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Short circuits from cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) systems leak current to surrounding tissues, rendering them malfunctional and resulting in unpredictable behaviour. Case summary: A 74-year-old gentleman was admitted electively for subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillator (SICD) generator change. The generator was exchanged like-for-like without incident. During defibrillation testing (DFT), both shocks were unsuccessful, with the second shock causing a malfunction in the self-adhesive pads attached to the external defibrillator. Following brief cardiopulmonary resuscitation, new pads were attached, resulting in successful external defibrillation. Post-procedure analysis revealed the impedance within the device system was <1Ω, and therefore the defibrillation energy had delivered into a short circuit throughout the patient's thorax. 120 days later, the patient received a second complication, experiencing a further shock despite tachycardia therapies being programmed off due to a capacitor reformation. Extraction of the device later revealed an insulation breach as the cause of both complications. Discussion: In this case, the unpredictable behaviour from CIEDs due to short circuits resulted in two novel SICD complications. High voltage energy dissipated via the short can cause damage to other external devices, uncomfortable 'inappropriate' shocks, and patient harm. During DFT, a poor patient outcome was aborted on this occasion due to good team communication. The importance of operator knowledge of capacitor reformation and ability to cause an inadvertent device shock in the presence of a short circuit is emphasized.
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.