ArticleCardiology research2011
Underutilization of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Arrest.
Article in Cardiology research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Qualitative Analysis of Patient-Related Factors Associated With Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Acceptance.Cardiology and therapy · 2020Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the overall use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), among eligible patients from an outpatient cardiology clinic and to determine what factors might contribute to underutilization of ICDs.
methodsThis report was a retrospective chart review of patients with ischemic or non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35% from an outpatient cardiology practice from January 2005 to May 2008. These patients met the eligibility criteria for ICD implantation for primary prevention of SCA. A detailed review of medical records captured distribution of ICD implantation including future plans for ICD implant, patient preference against ICD use, presence of severe co-morbidities, and any other documented reasons/contraindications regarding ICD implantation.
resultsOf the 275 patients who were eligible for ICD for primary prevention of SCA, 119 (43%) had an ICD implantation. ICDs were used in 84 (48%) eligible men and 35 (35%) eligible women (P 0.02). Among 156 (57%) patients who did not receive ICD, 79 (28%) had severe co-morbidities precluding them from having ICD. Twenty-six patients (10%) refused to have ICD implanted. The remaining 51 (19%) patient charts did not include any documentation regarding ICD use (future plan or contraindication).
conclusionsICDs are underutilized for primary prevention of SCA, with rates of use being lowest among eligible women. This underutilization exists even after accounting for patient preferences and presence of severe co-morbid conditions that might make an otherwise eligible patient not a suitable candidate for ICD implantation.
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.