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.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Wearable cardioverter defibrillator for transient arrhythmic risk and sudden cardiac death prevention: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis.Open heart · 2025Pooled it
- Cost-minimization analysis of a wearable cardioverter defibrillator in adult patients undergoing ICD explant procedures: Clinical and economic implications.Clinical cardiology · 2021Pooled it
- Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy for the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JACC. Clinical electrophysiology · 2019Pooled it
- Benefit of a wearable cardioverter defibrillator for detection and therapy of arrhythmias in patients with myocarditis.ESC heart failure · 2021Observational
- [Wearable defibrillator : Current evidence].Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2018Review
- Therapy optimization in patients with heart failure: the role of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator in a real-world setting.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2018Observational
- The wearable defibrillator: a most affordable vest.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2017Article
- The use of a wearable cardioverter defibrillator during postmastectomy radiotherapy as an alternative for relocation of the pulse generator.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.