ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2026
Patients Experiencing Unsuccessful Defibrillation From Implantable Cardiac Devices Remain at Elevated Risk Despite Procedural Management.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnsuccessful defibrillation therapy in patients with implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) and ventricular tachytherapies may occur due to patient and/or device-related factors; appropriate management strategies after failed defibrillation therapy have been incompletely described.
objectivesTo report on the management and outcomes of patients with implantable cardiac devices and unsuccessful defibrillation therapies.
methodsA single-center cohort of patients with ICDs was examined, patients with unsuccessful ICD therapies were included. Demographic and device features, and survival free from recurrent unsuccessful device therapy was examined among patients undergoing operative vs. non-operative management.
resultsAmong 1449 patients with ICDs, 40 patients (2.8%) were identified with unsuccessful defibrillation therapies (mean age 59 ± 15 years, ejection fraction 29% ± 16%, ischemic cardiomyopathy n = 27, 67.5%, secondary prevention device placement n = 22, 55%, transvenous ICD n = 34, 85%, subcutaneous ICD n = 6, 15%). Nonoperative management strategies included device reprogramming (n = 8), addition of a class III anti-arrhythmic (n = 7), or conservative therapy (n = 5). Operative management included addition of a transvenous lead (n = 10), addition of subcutaneous array (n = 8), or change in pulse generator (n = 2). A single-coil device was present in 18/20(90%) patients undergoing operative management compared to 10/20 (50%) with non-operative management (p = 0.16). There were no demographic or device differences between the two groups. After 2.4 ± 2.1 years follow up, repeat VT occurred in 22 patients (55%) including 6 patients (15%) with a repeat failed defibrillator therapy. There was no differences in the risk of recurrent failed shocks among patients with operative vs non-operative management (log rank p = 0.14).
conclusionsAmong a large cohort of patients with ICD, the incidence of failed defibrillator therapy was 2.8%. With appropriate patient selection, both operative and non-operative management led to similar long-term outcomes; however, the overall incidence of repeat failed defibrillation therapy remained high at 15%.
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.