ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2026
Intraoperative Application of the PRAETORIAN Score to Predict Optimal Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Placement.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The PRAETORIAN score (PS) estimates the risk of defibrillation failure after subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation based on postoperative chest radiography in the standing position. However, the usefulness of assessing the PS in the supine position intraoperatively has not yet been established. Methods: We evaluated conventional (standing) and intraoperative supine PS in 124 consecutive Japanese patients undergoing S-ICD implantation. Changes between conventional and supine PS values were analyzed in two ways: (1) the presence of any difference in the absolute PS values regardless of the risk category, and (2) changes in clinically relevant risk categories for conversion failure (low, intermediate, or high risk). Predictors of discordance between the two assessments were also investigated. Results: The median conventional PS was 30; 116 and 8 patients were classified as having low and intermediate risk of conversion failure, respectively. Numerical differences between the conventional and supine PS values were observed in 13 patients. However, clinically meaningful risk reclassification occurred in only two patients, suggesting that intraoperative supine PS assessment may underestimate PRAETORIAN score-based risk classification in a small subset of patients. Among patients with numerical PS changes, supine PS was significantly lower than conventional PS. An elevated BMI was strongly associated with PS discordance. Exploratory receiver operating characteristic curve analysis identified a BMI cutoff of 25.6 kg/m Conclusions: Intraoperative supine PS assessment shows excellent concordance with conventional standing PS and may provide a practical tool for confirming appropriate system positioning in most Japanese patients.
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.