ArticleJAMA2014
Association between prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and survival in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction between 30% and 35%.
Article in JAMA, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality of observational studies of clinical interventions: a meta-epidemiological review.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Review
- Left ventricular ejection fraction: how to improve an established index?The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2021Article
- Association between heart failure and perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2021Article
- Risk factors for sudden cardiac death to determine high risk patients in specific patient populations that may benefit from a wearable defibrillator.World journal of cardiology · 2019Article
- When Is It Safe Not to Reimplant an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator at the Time of Battery Depletion?Cardiac electrophysiology clinics · 2018Review
- Seattle Heart Failure and Proportional Risk Models Predict Benefit From Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2017Article
- Variation in Hospital Use and Outcomes Associated With Pulmonary Artery Catheterization in Heart Failure in the United States.Circulation. Heart failure · 2016Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Iodine-123 Meta-Iodobenzylguanidine Imaging for Screening Heart Failure Patients Eligible for an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in the USA.Applied health economics and health policy · 2016Article
- National Trends in the Use of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With or Without Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator.Circulation · 2016Article
- Real world effectiveness of primary implantable cardioverter defibrillators implanted during hospital admissions for exacerbation of heart failure or other acute co-morbidities: cohort study of older patients with heart failure.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2015Article
- A Challenging Case Of Ventricular Arrhythmia In A Patient With Myocarditis: ICD Yes/No After Ablation.Journal of atrial fibrillationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
importanceClinical trials of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have included a minority of patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 30% and 35%. Because a large number of ICDs in the United States are implanted in such patients, it is important to study survival associated with this therapy.
objectiveTo characterize patients with LVEF between 30% and 35% and compare the survival of those with and without ICDs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsRetrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD registry (January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2007) with an LVEF between 30% and 35% who received an ICD during a heart failure hospitalization and similar patients in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) database (January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2009) with no ICD. The analysis was repeated in patients with an LVEF less than 30%. There were 3120 patients with an LVEF between 30% and 35% (816 in matched cohorts) and 4578 with an LVEF less than 30% (2176 in matched cohorts). Propensity score matching and Cox models were applied. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; data were obtained from Medicare claims through December 31, 2011.
resultsThere were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics of the matched groups (n = 408 for both groups). Among patients with an LVEF between 30% and 35%, there were 248 deaths in the ICD Registry group, within a median follow-up of 4.4 years (interquartile range, 2.7-4.9) and 249 deaths in the GWTG HF group, within a median follow-up of 2.9 years (interquartile range, 2.1-4.4). The risk of all-cause mortality in patients with an LVEF between 30% and 35% and an ICD was significantly lower than that in matched patients without an ICD (3-year mortality rates: 51.4% vs 55.0%; hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.69-0.99]; P = .04). Presence of an ICD also was associated with better survival in patients with an LVEF less than 30% (3-year mortality rates: 45.0% vs 57.6%; 634 and 660 total deaths; hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.65-0.81]; P < .001) (P = .20 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for heart failure and with an LVEF between 30% and 35% and less than 30%, survival at 3 years was better in patients who received a prophylactic ICD than in comparable patients with no ICD. These findings support guideline recommendations to implant prophylactic ICDs in eligible patients with an LVEF of 35% or less.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.