| Title |
Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Defibrillator Therapy A Meta-Analysis of Case-Control Studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jacep.2017.07.017 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Indranill Basu-Ray, Jing Liu, Xiaoming Jia, Michael Gold, Kenneth Ellenbogen, James DiNicolantonio, András Komócsi, András Vorobcsuk, Jitae Kim, Hamid Afshar, Wilson Lam, Nilesh Mathuria, Mehdi Razavi, Abdi Rasekh, Mohammad Saeed |
| Abstract |
This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis comparing efficacy and safety outcomes between subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) and transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD). The S-ICD was developed to minimize complications related to the conventional TV-ICD. Direct comparison of clinical outcomes between the 2 devices has been limited by varying patient characteristics and definitions of complications with no randomized trials completed comparing these systems. Studies in the PubMed and Embase databases and secondary referencing sources were systematically reviewed. Studies meeting criteria were included in the meta-analysis. Baseline characteristics and outcome data of the S-ICD and TV-ICD groups were appraised and analyzed. A random-effects model was used to derive odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Five studies met inclusion criteria. Baseline characteristics were similar between the S-ICD and TV-ICD groups. Fewer lead complications occurred in the S-ICD group compared to the TV-ICD group (OR: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.38). The infection rate was similar between the S-ICD and TV-ICD groups (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.30 to 1.89). There were no differences in system or device failures between groups (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.43 to 3.02). Overall, inappropriate therapy (T-wave oversensing, supraventricular tachycardia, episodes of inappropriate sensing) was similar between the 2 groups (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.49). However, the nature of inappropriate therapy was different between the S-ICD and TV-ICD groups. Both devices appear to perform equally well with respect to appropriate shocks. S-ICD reduced lead-related complications but was similar to TV-ICD with regard to non-lead-related complications, including inappropriate therapy. These results support the concept that S-ICD is a safe and effective alternative to TV-ICD in appropriate patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 69 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 30 | 43% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 7% |
| Australia | 3 | 4% |
| Belgium | 2 | 3% |
| India | 2 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 17 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 53 | 77% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 13% |
| Scientists | 5 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 108 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Researcher | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 23% |
| Unknown | 37 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 44% |
| Engineering | 5 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 44 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 371. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 May 2021.
All research outputs
#84,894
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
#6
of 1,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,910
of 328,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
#1
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,531 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.