ReviewArrhythmia & electrophysiology review2019
Strategies to Reduce Recurrent Shocks Due to Ventricular Arrhythmias in Patients with an Implanted Cardioverter-Defibrillator.
Review in Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04542798 (Central Sensitization and Aberrant Nerve Sprouting Possible Explanations for RFA Failure of MBDR in CLBP of FJ Origin), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Central Sensitization and Aberrant Nerve Sprouting Possible Explanations for RFA Failure of MBDR in CLBP of FJ Origin: CRF Versus WCRF or PRF-DRG Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy of catheter ablation versus ICD for prevention of ventricular tachycardia in patients with ischemic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2021Pooled it
- Incidence, Risk Factors and Predictors of Phantom Shocks in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: State-of-the-art Review.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2024Review
- Factors associated with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks in patients suffering from non-ischemic cardiomyopathy.ARYA atherosclerosis · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ventricular arrhythmias are a therapeutic challenge, owing to their relatively unpredictable and deadly nature. Many patients are treated with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for either primary or secondary prevention of ventricular arrhythmias, meaning those who are at high risk of versus those who have experienced ventricular arrhythmias or sudden cardiac arrest, respectively. Despite the life-saving benefit, ICD comes with the risk of recurrent shocks for both appropriate and inappropriate rhythms. Patients with recurrent shocks have a poor quality of life and increased mortality rates. In this article, we review data for optimal device settings, medical management and radiofrequency ablation strategies to minimise the frequency of ICD shock, with a focus on treatment of ventricular arrhythmias, to reduce patient morbidity and mortality, and to maximise wellbeing and quality of life.
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.