↓ Skip to main content

American College of Cardiology

Article Metrics

Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Defibrillator Therapy

Overview of attention for article published in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 455)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
39 news outlets
twitter
68 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Defibrillator Therapy
Published in
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology, December 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 68 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 10 26%
Researcher 8 21%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Other 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 42%
Unspecified 14 37%
Engineering 3 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 363. 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 26 October 2018.
All research outputs
#24,865
of 12,089,023 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
#2
of 455 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,463
of 270,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
#1
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,089,023 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 455 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. 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 270,440 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 44 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 97% of its contemporaries.