ReviewEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2026
Beyond one-size-fits-all: personalized selection of contemporary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapies.
Review in Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the first human implantation in 1980, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have transformed the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Today, multiple ICD platforms are available, each with distinct strengths and limitations, making individualized device selection essential to optimize outcomes and minimize complications. The transvenous ICD remains the most established technology, offering reliable defibrillation, antitachycardia pacing (ATP), and pacing support, but is limited by lead-related complications and infection risk. The subcutaneous ICD avoids intravascular leads and is particularly attractive in younger patients and those at high risk of infection, although it lacks ATP and has shorter device longevity. The extravascular ICD is an emerging alternative designed to combine the advantages of both systems by providing ATP and shock therapy without intravascular leads, though implantation is more complex and long-term evidence remains limited. Given these differences, ICD selection should be guided by patient-specific clinical characteristics rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. Key determinants include pacing indication, prior lead failure, infection risk, body mass index, age, and arrhythmic substrate. The proposed clinical pathway offers a practical framework to support tailored ICD selection by integrating these variables into a structured decision-making process. Such an individualized approach may improve patient outcomes, reduce device-related complications, and enhance the appropriate adoption of contemporary ICD technologies.
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.