ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2020
Cardioverter-defibrillator does not improve short-term survival among patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Protected risk stratification with the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator: results from the WEARIT-II-EUROPE registry.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2021Observational
- A Simple Score to Identify Super-Responders to Sacubitril/Valsartan in Ambulatory Patients With Heart Failure.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
- A novel risk score to predict survival in advanced heart failure due to cardiac amyloidosis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe DANISH trial raised doubts about the effectiveness of primary prevention of sudden cardiac death by ICD implantation among patients with non-ischemic heart failure. We sought to analyse data from the EVITA-HF registry to give an answer from real-world registry data to the DANISH trial.
methods1804 patients were identified from the EVITA-HF registry with chronic heart failure (CHF) due to ischemic or dilated heart disease and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤ 35%. The patients were divided into two groups: Patients with newly implanted cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD group; mean age 66 ± 12 years, 77% male) and without ICD (no-ICD group; mean age 66 ± 14 years, 77% male). The subgroups were compared with regard to mortality and predictive parameters affecting survival.
resultsCardiovascular risk factors were similar among patients in the non-ICD group (n = 1473) compared to ICD group (n = 331). After 1-year follow-up patients with ischemic heart disease showed a significant improved survival in the ICD group compared to non-ICD group [92.1% vs. 80.6%, HR 0.37 (0.22-0.62)]. Patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy did not show a difference with regard to survival between the ICD and the non-ICD group [93.7% vs. 93.1%, HR 0.92 (0.43-1.97)]. The data were stable in a Cox-regression model.
conclusionIn a real-world setting, no benefit was evident for patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction by adding ICD therapy in a short-term follow-up of 12 months in contrast to patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.
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.