Clinical Experience With the Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter–Defibrillator in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sudden cardiac death is a major contributor to mortality for adults with congenital heart disease. The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has emerged as a novel tool for prevention of sudden cardiac death, but clinical performance data for adults with congenital heart disease are limited. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective study involving 7 centers over a 5-year period beginning in 2011 was performed. Twenty-one patients (median 33.9 years) were identified. The most common diagnosis was single ventricle physiology (52%), 9 palliated by Fontan operation and 2 by aortopulmonary shunts: d-transposition of the great arteries after Mustard/Senning (n=2), tetralogy of Fallot (n=2), aortic valve disease (n=2), and other biventricular surgery (n=4). A prior cardiac device had been implanted in 7 (33%). The ICD indication was primary prevention in 67% and secondary in 33% patients. The most common reason for subcutaneous ICD placement was limited transvenous access for ventricular lead placement (n=10) followed by intracardiac right-to-left shunt (n=5). Ventricular arrhythmia was induced in 17 (81%) and was converted with ≤80 Joules in all. There was one implant complication related to infection, not requiring device removal. Over a median follow-up of 14 months, 4 patients (21%) received inappropriate and 1 (5%) patient received appropriate shocks. There was one arrhythmic death related to asystole in a single ventricle patient. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous ICD implantation is feasible for adults with congenital heart disease patients. Most candidates have single ventricle heart disease and limited transvenous options for ICD placement. Despite variable anatomy, this study demonstrates successful conversion of induced ventricular arrhythmia and reasonable rhythm discrimination during follow-up.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".