Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28188473›Full record

ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2017

Outpatient treatment with the wearable cardioverter defibrillator: clinical experience in two Dutch centres.

A F B E Quast, V F van Dijk, A A M Wilde, R E Knops, L V A Boersma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Observational
  5. [Wearable defibrillator : Current evidence].Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2018
    Review
  6. Observational
  7. The wearable defibrillator: a most affordable vest.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2017
    Article
  8. Article
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

5 authors.

A F B E QuastHeart Centre, Department of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. a.f.quast@amc.uva.nl.
V F van DijkDepartment of Cardiology, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
A A M WildeHeart Centre, Department of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R E KnopsHeart Centre, Department of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
L V A BoersmaDepartment of Cardiology, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe latest European Society of Cardiology Guidelines recommend consideration of a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) for patients with a poor left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who are at risk of sudden arrhythmic death but are not eligible for an implantable defibrillator. For these patients a WCD can be an alternative to long-term hospitalisation. PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of WCD therapy in these patient groups in two Dutch centres.

methodsAll consecutive patients treated with the WCD between 2009 and 2016 were included from two centres in the Netherlands. Data on events and compliance were collected retrospectively through home monitoring systems and adjudicated by the investigators.

resultsA total of 79 patients were treated with a WCD. Common indications were newly diagnosed cardiomyopathy without optimal medical treatment in 46 patients (58.2%) and bridge to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implant in 33 patients (41.8%). Bridge to implant indications consisted of contraindications for immediate implantation such as infections (e. g. previous device-related infections) and radiotherapy. Compliance was over 97% per day (median 23.3 h, 22.6-23.7), during a median of 79 days (50.0-109.8.0). Two patients (2.6%) received an appropriate shock (annual rate 13.6%), there was 1 (1.3%) inappropriate shock (annual rate 6.7%). In 24 patients (52.2%) without optimal medical treatment, the LVEF was sufficiently improved and ICD implant was avoided. Eight (10.1%) patients did not receive an ICD. In 45 patients an ICD was implanted (57.0%).

conclusionWCD therapy provides a safe and effective treatment in outpatient setting for patients at high risk for sudden cardiac death and reduces the number of ICDs implanted.

Indexed as

Sudden deathVentricular arrhythmiasWearable cardioverter defibrillator

Identifiers

PMID28188473
PMCPMC5405026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.