ReviewCardiac electrophysiology clinics2018
When Is It Safe Not to Reimplant an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator at the Time of Battery Depletion?
Review in Cardiac electrophysiology clinics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors and outcomes associated with improved left ventricular systolic function in patients with cardiomyopathy.Cardiology journal · 2022Trial
- Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for primary prevention in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a Markov model using JROAD-DPC cost data in Japan.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- CRT-D replacement strategy: results of the BioCONTINUE study.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2023Observational
- Survival Probability and Survival Benefit Associated With Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Generator Changes.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Article
- Incidence of Ventricular Arrhythmias and 1-Year Predictors of Mortality in Patients Treated With Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Undergoing Generator Replacement.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Observational
- [Continuation of ICD treatment at the time of device exchange without adequate treatment?]Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is a life-saving therapy in various patient populations. Although data on the outcomes of initial ICD implants are abundant, data on ICD replacements, especially in patients with improved left ventricular (LV) function, are scarce. Therefore, it is not known when it is safe to not replace an ICD that has reached the end of battery life. This article reviews data on patients with primary prevention ICDs who have improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction during follow-up and provides some guidance, based on the available evidence, related to circumstances when replacement of an ICD may be forgone.
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.