Trial reportJournal of the American Heart Association2019
Prognostic Importance of Defibrillator-Appropriate Shocks and Antitachycardia Pacing in Patients With Mild Heart Failure.
Trial report 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, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- For Whom the Bell Tolls : Refining Risk Assessment for Sudden Cardiac Death.Current cardiology reports · 2019Pooled it
- Prognostic Importance of Defibrillator-Appropriate Shocks and Antitachycardia Pacing in Patients With Mild Heart Failure.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019Trial
- Utility of an Externalized Temporary Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator System in the Setting of Ventricular Tachycardia Storm and Concurrent Device Infection Requiring Extraction.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2024Article
- Management of patients with an electrical storm or clustered ventricular arrhythmias: a clinical consensus statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association of the ESC-endorsed by the Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, Heart Rhythm Society, and Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society.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 · 2024Article
- Effect of Digitalis on ICD or CRT-D Recipients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Effectiveness of changing conventional implantable cardioverter-defibrillator settings to intrinsic antitachycardia pacing-like settings in the treatment of ventricular tachycardia in patients with cardiac failure.HeartRhythm case reports · 2022Article
- High Incidence of Inappropriate Alarms in Patients with Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Findings from the Swiss WCD Registry.Journal of clinical medicine · 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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Patients with heart failure and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator ( ICD ) for primary prevention are at increased mortality risk after receiving shock therapy. We sought to determine the prognostic significance of ICD therapies, both shock and antitachycardia pacing, delivered for different ventricular arrhythmia ( VA ) rates. Methods and Results We evaluated mortality risk among 1790 ICD -implanted patients from MADIT -CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy). For the first analysis, patients were divided into mutually exclusive groups by the rate of treated VA only: slow VA (<200 beats per minute) and fast VA (≥200 beats per minute or ventricular fibrillation). In a secondary analysis, both the type of ICD therapy and VA rate were used. The reference group was always patients who had no ICD therapy. ICD therapy for fast VA was associated with increased mortality risk (hazard ratio [ HR] , 2.27; 95% CI , 1.48-3.48; P<0.001). However, mortality risk after ICD therapy for slow VA was similar to the risk related to no ICD therapy ( HR , 1.45; 95% CI , 0.86-2.44; P=0.162). Consistently, shocks ( HR , 2.96; 95% CI , 1.91-4.60; P<0.001) and antitachycardia pacing ( HR , 2.22; 95% CI , 0.96-5.14; P=0.063) for fast VA were both associated with increased mortality risk. Shocks and antitachycardia pacing for slow VA were not significantly associated with increased mortality risk ( HR , 1.43 [95% CI , 0.52-3.92; P=0.489]; and HR , 1.43 [95% CI, 0.80-2.56; P=0.232], respectively). Conclusions In patients with mild heart failure receiving ICD for primary prevention, mortality is associated with the rate of underlying VA rather than the type of therapy. These findings suggest that fast VA is a marker for increased mortality rather than shock therapy directly contributing to increased risk. Clinical Trial Registration URL : http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 00180271.
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.