ArticleHeart and vessels2018
Shocks after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in idiopathic cardiomyopathy patients: a myocardial biopsy study.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2018. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Selvester score predicts implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy.Journal of arrhythmia · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prediction of follow-up shock is crucial to stratify patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) requiring implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). The objective of the article is to assess the predictive value of endo-myocardial biopsy (EMB) towards ICD shock and follow-up mortality. A series of patients with DCM scheduled for ICD implantation underwent EMB to further determine the genesis of DCM. Presence of fibrosis and inflammation was documented and related to outcomes. A total of 240 patients were referred for ICD as primary (56%) and secondary (44%) prophylaxis. EMB showed myocardial fibrosis in 55.4%, inflammation in 55.7%, and viral genomic material in 60%. Median follow-up was 39 months (1-209). Appropriate and inappropriate shocks occurred in 29.2 and 20.4%. At logistic regression, determinants of appropriate shock were ICD indication for secondary prophylaxis (direct relationship: p = 0.009, OR 3.4, CI 1.3-8.8) and presence of inflammation at EMB (inverse relationship: p = 0.04, OR 0.4, CI 0.1-0.9). Moreover, the sole determinant of inappropriate shock was age at implant (inverse relationship: p = 0.003, OR = 0.9, CI 0.90-0.98). Overall mean estimated survival was 168 months and 5-year survival was 83%. Degree of improvement in LVEF% was the sole determinant of follow-up mortality (inverse relationship p = 0.02; HR = 0.9; CI 0.88-0.99). Present selection criteria for ICDs implant rely mainly on LVEF% that lacks sensitivity and specificity. EMB can identify the substrate of increased or reduced life-threatening arrhythmias. Presence of inflammation is a positive prognostic factor for reduced arrhythmogenic risk, independently by the ICD implantation indication.
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.