ReviewCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2019
Recent Updates in the Role of Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator for Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death.
Review in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) or LifeVest may protect against sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients awaiting insertion of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). The purpose of this communication is to review the rationale behind WCD therapy and to critically analyze recent data regarding its clinical efficacy. We seek to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the potential role of the WCD in certain populations. RECENT
findingsThe only randomized controlled trial that evaluated WCD therapy did not demonstrate a reduced rate of arrhythmic death in patients prescribed the WCD during the first 90-day post-myocardial infarction (MI). However, when considering trial results alongside previous retrospective data, patient noncompliance with WCD therapy-rather than ineffectiveness of WCD therapy-remains an important theme. The uncertainty of data regarding the use of WCD therapy in patients during ICD waiting periods should be considered as part of the shared decision processes between healthcare providers and patients. Higher rates of adherence are needed to ensure efficiency. Well-designed future studies with appropriate cost-effectiveness analyses are indicated to define the clinical efficacy of WCD therapy on arrhythmic and non-arrhythmic morbidity and mortality in patients who are not yet candidates for ICDs.
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.