MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377984111 · doi:10.1093/europace/euad122.346

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator generator removal: a multicenter analysis

2023· article· en· W4377984111 on OpenAlexaffabout
J Luker, Marc Strik, Jason G. Andrade, Alyssia Paquin, Mohamed ElRefai, Óscar Cano Pérez, Jordana Kron, J Schmitt, Alexander Pott, Christian Veltmann, Neil T. Srinivasan, Amw Van Stipdonk, Nina Fluschnik, Andreas Haeberlin, Daniel Steven

Bibliographic record

VenueEP Europace · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversitätsklinikum KölnUniversität zu Köln
KeywordsMedicineImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorIncidence (geometry)Multicenter studyPrimary preventionSudden cardiac deathEmergency medicineArtificial cardiac pacemakerMedical emergencyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public hospital(s). Main funding source(s): University Hospital Cologne Introduction The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) was a significant recent advance in sudden cardiac death prevention. Device-related complications, including infection or lead fracture, or changes in the medical status, such as necessity for cardiac pacing, may necessitate device removal. (1) Real-world multicenter data on S-ICD removal are sparse. Purpose This multicenter analysis sought to assess the incidence and indications for S-ICD generator removal. Methods Retrospective data and the most recent follow-up data on S-ICD devices implanted at 14 participating centers in Europe, the US and Canada, and information on subsequent device removal was submitted to an online database (2). Limited baseline patient information and the incidence of and reasons for S-ICD generator removal or failure were reported. Premature device removal was defined as device removal for any reason other than regular battery depletion (>5 years of longevity). Results Data from 1106 devices was analyzed. Devices were implanted between 15.10.2009 and 16.04.2021 at the participating centers. The first-generation model 1010 generator was implanted in 55 (5%), the newer models A209 or A219 were implanted in 457 (41.3%) and 594 (53.7%) respectively. Patients were aged 46.7±16.1 years and the indication for ICD therapy was primary prevention in 616 (55.7%) and secondary prevention in 484 (43.8%). During the follow-up period, 37 (3%) patients deceased, and 96 patients were excluded from the analysis due to lack of follow-up (<4 weeks). Premature device removal was performed in 103 (9.3%) during the follow-up period of 31.3±19.5 months. The most common reasons for removal were battery depletion (52%), of which premature, defined as <5 years longevity, depletion accounted for 57%, upgrade to transvenous ICD or CRT (17%) and infection (11%). Other indications for removal included heart transplantation (4%) or ventricular assist device implantation (1.5%), noise detection or inappropriate shocks (6.5%), and patient discomfort (0.7%). (see figure 1) Regular battery depletion occurred in 34 devices after 69.2±5.3 months. There was no difference in device longevity between the different generator models (1010, A209, and A219). There were no significant differences between the different generator models with respect to indications for explanation. Conclusions In this real-world retrospective multicenter analysis, premature S-ICD generator removal was necessary in 9.3% of patients. Premature battery depletion, infections, and the need for pacing were the most common indications for unplanned generator removal.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEP EuropaceSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207