Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20505945›Full record

SynthesisHerzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie2010

[ICD therapy as secondary prevention].

K Seidl, M Strauss, T Kleemann

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

K SeidlZentrum für Herzrhythmusstörungen Ludwigshafen, Bremserstr. 79, 67063, Ludwigshafen, Deutschland. seidlk@klilu.de
M Strauss
T Kleemann

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients who survive out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or symptomatic ventricular tachyarrhythmias are at considerable risk of recurrence of these events and ultimately death. The implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients with previous sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VT) is considered secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. The purpose of this review is to summarize the most important trials on secondary prevention with an ICD. The results from a meta-analysis showed a relative-risk reduction of 28% in overall mortality. Compared with amiodarone, an ICD provided maximal benefit for those patients with an ejection fraction between 20% and 35%. The results of the ICD trial demonstrate that there is clear evidence for the effectiveness of an ICD in patients with unstable VT; however, for patients with stable VT the results are less clear. Data on older patients are scant, and whether the survival benefit observed in the middle aged and younger-old also extend to older elderly patients with a more limited life span is less clear. Therefore, as the population becomes older, it is important to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and the cost effectiveness of ICD implantation in this population. Guidelines are important and helpful to guide clinical decisions, but the indication for an ICD still remains an individual decision after evaluation of the risks and benefits for the individual patient. However, the patient needs to be involved, which emphasizes the importance of dialogue between the patient and physician.

Indexed as

Death, Sudden, CardiacDefibrillators, ImplantableElectric CountershockGermanyHeart FailureHumansIncidenceInternationalityRisk FactorsSecondary Prevention

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.