ArticleCardiology journal2010
Physicians' knowledge and attitudes regarding implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.
Article in Cardiology journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of One-Year Mortality after Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Placement: An Opportunity for Palliative Care?Journal of palliative medicine · 2023Article
- Decision-making regarding primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators among older adults.Clinical cardiology · 2020Review
- Physicians' knowledge and attitudes in Saudi Arabia regarding implantable cardiac defibrillators.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2018Article
- A roadmap for evaluating the use and value of durable ventricular assist device therapy.The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation · 2018Article
- Comparative Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Primary Prevention in Women.Circulation. Heart failure · 2016Article
- Referring physicians' discordance with the primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator guidelines: a national survey.Heart rhythm · 2012Article
- Underutilization of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Arrest.Cardiology research · 2011Article
- ICD Implantation Practice Within Europe: How To Explain The Differences Beyond Economy?Journal of atrial fibrillationReview
- Life-saving devices reach the end of life with heart failure.Progress in cardiovascular diseasesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInformation is limited regarding the knowledge and attitudes of physicians typically involved in the referral of patients for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation.
methodsWe conducted a survey of primary care physicians and cardiologists at the University of Rochester Medical Center and the Unity Health System Rochester, NY from December 2008 to February 2009. The survey collected information regarding physicians' knowledge of and attitudes towards ICD therapy.
resultsOf the 332 surveys distributed, 110 (33%) were returned. Over-all 94 (87%) physicians reported referring patients for ICD implantation. Eighteen (17%) physicians reported unawareness of guidelines for ICD use. Sixty-four (59%) physicians recommended ICD in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < or = 35%. Sixty-five (62%) physicians use < or = 35% as the LVEF criterion for ICD referral in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Cardiologists were more familiar than primary care physicians with LVEF criteria for implantation of ICD in patients with ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (p value 0.005 and 0.002, respectively). Twenty-nine (27%) participants were unsure regarding the benefits of ICDs in eligible women and blacks. Eighty two (76%) physicians believed that an ICD could benefit patients > or = 70 years old, whereas only 53 (49%) indicated that an ICD would benefit patients > or = 80.
conclusionsA lack of familiarity with current clinical guidelines regarding ICD implantation exists. Primary care physicians are less aware of clinical guidelines than are cardiologists. This finding highlights the need to improve the dissemination of guidelines to primary care physicians in an effort to improve ICD utilization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20535717PMC3337764W2128354549What 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.