ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2026
Midterm Efficacy of SubcutAneous Implantable CardioVErter-Defibrillator in ≤ 18 Year-Old CHILDREN (SAVE CHILDREN-II Registry).
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 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
77 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) avoids transvenous leads and is a promising option for sudden cardiac death (SCD) prevention in pediatric patients. However, mid-term outcomes and post-shock management strategies remain insufficiently characterized. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective observational study included pediatric patients (≤ 18 years) who underwent S-ICD implantation between February 2016 and July 2021. Clinical characteristics, pre-implant screening, procedural details, device-related events, and follow-up data were analyzed. The incidence and management of appropriate and inappropriate therapies and subsequent recurrence were evaluated. Results: Ninety-six patients (median age 14.5 years) were enrolled and followed for a median of 70 months (29-75.0 months). Sensing vector suitability remained stable despite somatic growth. Appropriate shocks occurred in 32 patients (33.7%), while inappropriate shocks occurred in 27 (28.4%). After appropriate therapy, intensified pharmacological treatment and catheter ablation prevented recurrent device therapy in 45.5% and 50.0% of cases, respectively, although device shock occurred in 50.9% despite intervention. Following inappropriate therapy, device reprogramming and lifestyle guidance prevented recurrence in 71.4% of patients (15/21). Device-related infection was rare (2 cases), and no lead fractures were observed. Conclusions: S-ICD therapy demonstrated favorable mid-term safety and efficacy in pediatric patients, with durable sensing performance and a low incidence of device-related infection. Although inappropriate shocks were not uncommon, appropriate post-shock management effectively reduced recurrence, supporting S-ICD as a viable option for selected pediatric patients without pacing requirements.
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.