ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2019
How Well Do Results From Randomized Clinical Trials and/or Recommendations for Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Programming Diffuse Into Clinical Practice?
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incidence and risk factors for first and recurrent ICD shock therapy in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2025Article
- Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Programming: It Is Time to Get Things Right With a Checklist Manifesto.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Predictors of Shock-Reduction Programming and Its Impact on Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapies and Mortality: The CERTITUDE Registry.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices and disease management.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- The Interplay of PR Interval and AV Pacing Delays Used for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Heart Failure Patients: Association with Clinical Response in a Retrospective Analysis of a Large Observational Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Outcomes Following Standardized Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Reprogramming.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2022Article
- How Well Do Results From Randomized Clinical Trials and/or Recommendations for Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Programming Diffuse Into Clinical Practice?Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming can be detrimental. Whether trials/recommendations informing best implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming (high-rate cutoff and/or extended duration of detection) influence practice is unknown. Methods and Results We measured reaction to publication of MADIT-RIT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Reduce Inappropriate Therapy; 2012) and the Consensus Statement (2015) providing generic programming parameters, in a national cohort of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients, using the ALTITUDE database (Boston Scientific). Yearly changes in programmed parameters to either trial-specified or class 1 recommended parameters (≥185 beats per minute or delay ≥6 seconds) were assessed in parallel. From 2008 to 2017, 232 982 patients (aged 67±13 years; 28% women) were analyzed. Prevalence of MADIT- RIT -specific settings before publication was <1%, increasing to 13.6% in the year following. Thereafter, this increased by <6% over 5 years. Among preexisting implants (91 171), most patients (58 739 [64.4%]) underwent at least 1 in-person device reprogramming after trial publication, but <2% were reprogrammed to MADIT - RIT settings. Notably, prevalence of programming to ≥185 beats per minute or delay ≥6 seconds was increased by MADIT - RIT (57.4% in 2013 versus 40.2% at baseline), but the following publication of recommendations had minor incremental effect (73.2% in 2016 versus 70.8% in 2015). High-rate cutoff programming was favored almost 2-fold compared with extended duration throughout the test period. Practice changes demonstrated large interhospital and interstate variations. Conclusions Trial publication had an immediate effect during 1 year postpublication, but absolute penetration was low, and amplified little with time. Consensus recommendations had a negligible effect. However, generic programming was exercised more widely, and increased after trial publication, but not following recommendations.
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.