ReviewHerzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie2016
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in congenital heart disease.
Review in Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review of rhythm disturbances in patient after fontan completion: epidemiology, management, and surveillance.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
- Cardiac resynchronization and implantable defibrillators in adults with congenital heart disease.Heart failure reviews · 2020Review
- Use of magnetic resonance imaging combined with gene analysis for the diagnosis of fetal congenital heart disease.BMC medical imaging · 2019Article
- Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in grown-up patients with transposition of the great arteries-role of anti-tachycardia pacing.Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Article
- Epicardial cardioverter defibrillator implantation due to post-fontan ventricular tachycardia.Annals of cardiac anaesthesiaArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) have an important role in reducing sudden cardiac death in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD); however, the benefit of ICDs needs to be weighed up against both short-term and long-term adverse effects, which are difficult to evaluate in the heterogeneous CHD population. A tailored approach, taking into account risk stratification and patient-specific factors, is needed to select the most appropriate strategy. This review discusses primary and secondary ICD indications, implantation approaches and long-term follow-up. Recent publications have shed light on the concerns of system longevity, lead extractions, inappropriate shocks and impact on the quality of life. All of these factors require consideration prior to commitment to this long-term treatment strategy.
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.