↓ Skip to main content

Sudden Death in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Internal Medicine, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
52 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
8 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor
podcasts
1 podcast

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Sudden Death in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices
Published in
JAMA Internal Medicine, August 2015
DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2641
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Interrogations and autopsies of sudden deaths with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are rarely performed. Therefore, causes of sudden deaths with these devices and the incidence of device failure are unknown. To determine causes of death in individuals with CIEDs in a prospective autopsy study of all sudden deaths over 35 months as part of the San Francisco, California, Postmortem Systematic Investigation of Sudden Cardiac Death (POST SCD) study. Full autopsy, toxicology, histology, and device interrogation were performed on incident sudden cardiac deaths with pacemakers or implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). The setting was the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, City and County of San Francisco. Participants included all sudden deaths captured through active surveillance of all deaths reported to the medical examiner and San Francisco residents with an ICD (January 1, 2011, to November 30, 2013). Identification of a device concern in sudden deaths with CIEDs, including hardware failures, device algorithm issues, device programming issues, and improper device selection. For the ICD population, outcomes were the cumulative incidence of death and sudden cardiac death and the proportion of deaths with an ICD concern. Twenty-two of 517 sudden deaths (4.3%) had CIEDs, and autopsy revealed a noncardiac cause of death in 6. Six of 14 pacemaker sudden deaths and 7 of 8 ICD sudden deaths died of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. Device concerns were identified in half (4 pacemakers and 7 ICDs), including 3 hardware failures contributing directly to death (1 rapid battery depletion with a sudden drop in pacing output and 2 lead fractures), 5 ICDs with ventricular fibrillation undersensing, 1 ICD with ventricular tachycardia missed due to programming, 1 improper device selection, and a pacemaker-dependent patient with pneumonia and concern about lead fracture. Of 712 San Francisco residents with an ICD during the study period, 109 died (15.3% cumulative 35-month incidence of death), and the 7 ICD concerns represent 6.4% of all ICD deaths. Systematic interrogation and autopsy of sudden deaths in one city identified concerns about CIED function that might otherwise not have been observed. Current passive surveillance efforts may underestimate device malfunction. These methods can provide unbiased data regarding causes of sudden death in individuals with CIEDs and improve surveillance for CIED problems.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 52 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 19%
Other 15 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Student > Master 6 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 6%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 29 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 47%
Engineering 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 32 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 104. 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 22 March 2026.
All research outputs
#512,759
of 34,307,719 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Internal Medicine
#1,716
of 6,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,654
of 301,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Internal Medicine
#25
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,307,719 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,218 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 157.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 301,699 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.