ArticleCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2009
Role of wearable and automatic external defibrillators in improving survival in patients at risk for sudden cardiac death.
Article in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator after Myocardial Infarction.The New England journal of medicine · 2018Trial
- Early risk of mortality after coronary artery revascularization in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and potential role of the wearable cardioverter defibrillator.Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac arrest is a vexing public health problem. Fortunately, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have been proven to decrease overall mortality in several populations at high risk for cardiac arrest. However, it is still unclear how to treat patients who have an elevated risk of cardiac arrest but are not in one of the identified high-risk groups proven to benefit from an ICD. It also is uncertain how to manage high-risk patients who have an accepted indication for an ICD but are unable or unwilling to have an ICD. In these clinical situations, the wearable defibrillator and automatic external defibrillator are options that should be considered. Both devices have been shown in small series to be highly effective at restoring sinus rhythm in patients with a ventricular tachyarrhythmia. However, there is still a lack of large-scale trials proving that these devices should be employed routinely in specific high-risk patient populations.
Identifiers
19846033What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.