Key result
The prevalence of extracardiac inappropriate shocks was significantly higher in patients with the SMART-Pass filter (46%) compared to those without the filter (6%, P=0.047).
Why the study?
Does the SMART-Pass filter reduce the proportion of inappropriate shocks due to extracardiac oversensing in patients with S-ICD?
Meta-Analysis (n=2,654)
Does the SMART-Pass filter reduce the proportion of inappropriate shocks due to extracardiac oversensing in patients with S-ICD?
Absolute Event Rate: 46% vs 6%
p-value: p=0.047
Extracardiac inappropriate shocks account for a significant proportion of S-ICD shocks, and the SMART-Pass filter does not prevent them, emphasizing the need to identify and manage causes like myopotentials and electromagnetic interference.
The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) is an established treatment for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. In the S-ICD studies, inappropriate shocks (IAS) rate were reported to renge between 5% to 25% and to be mainly due to cardiac and noncardiac oversensing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maurizio Santomauro (2020) conducted a meta-analysis in Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) (n=2,654). SMART-Pass (SP) filter vs. Without SMART-Pass filter was evaluated on Prevalence of extracardiac inappropriate shocks (p=0.047). The prevalence of extracardiac inappropriate shocks was significantly higher in patients with the SMART-Pass filter (46%) compared to those without the filter (6%, P=0.047).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: