ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2019
Electrical Storm: Current Evidence, Clinical Implications, and Future Perspectives.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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
- Contemporary ICD Use in Patients with Heart Failure.Cardiology and therapy · 2021Review
- Effective treatment of electrical storm by a wearable cardioverter defibrillator in a patient with severely impaired left ventricular function after myocardial infarction: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2021Article
- A Recalcitrant Electrical Storm and Implantable Defibrillator Exhaustion: Treatment Implications According to and Beyond Guidelines.JACC. Case reports · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewElectrical storm (ES) is a life-threatening medical emergency of repetitive episodes of sustained ventricular arrhythmias within a short period. Its occurrence is associated with poor short- and long-term survival, even in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD). Management of ES is challenging and mainly based on retrospective studies. This article reviews the existing literature on ES, presents the available data regarding its management, and proposes a new algorithm based on current evidence. RECENT
findingsRecent research could modify the management of ES supporting the role of non-selective β1 and β2 blockade and the early intervention with catheter ablation as well as strengthening the role of cardiac sympathetic denervation. A multipronged approach should be considered for the management of ES including identification and correction of reversible causes, ICD reprogramming, drug therapy (beta-blockers-especially non-selective ones-and other anti-arrhythmic drugs) and non-pharmacologic therapies such as catheter ablation and techniques of neuroaxial modulation. Although current data suggest early aggressive management, further research is required to clarify the optimal order and combination of therapies for the prevention of future events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31352528What 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.