ArticlePloS one2019
Questionable utility of digoxin in left-ventricular assist device recipients: A multicenter, retrospective analysis.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile clinical experience with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) continues to grow and evolve, little is known regarding the ongoing use of certain medications in this population. We sought to evaluate the utility of digoxin in LVAD recipients and its association with outcomes.
methodsA total of 505 patients who underwent continuous-flow LVAD implantation at 5 centers from 2007-2015 were included. Patients were divided into 4 groups: not on digoxin at any time (ND; n = 257), received digoxin pre implant (PreD; n = 144), received digoxin pre and post implant (ContD; n = 55), and received digoxin only post implant (PostD; n = 49). Survival and all-cause readmission were compared between the 4 groups.
resultsThere was no difference in survival at 1 year nor at 3 years between groups (ND = 88%, 66%, respectively; PreD = 85%, 66%; ContD = 86%, 57%; PostD = 90%, 51%; p = 0.7). Readmission per 100 days also was not different between groups (ND = 0.5, PreD = 0.6, ContD = 0.5, PostD = 0.7; p = 0.1).
conclusionsIn this large, multicenter cohort, use of digoxin was not associated with any significant benefit in regard to mortality or hospitalization in patients supported with a continuous-flow LVAD. Importantly, its discontinuation post implant did not worsen all-cause hospitalization or survival.
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.