ReviewCurrent heart failure reports2019
Current Review of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Use in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Device.
Review in Current heart failure reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator use in patients with left ventricular assist device: prediction of ventricular arrhythmia using the VT-LVAD score.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- The Role of Daily Implant-Based Multiparametric Telemonitoring in Patients with a Ventricular Assist Device.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Wearable cardioverter defibrillator: bridging for implantable defibrillators in left ventricular assist device patients.Heart failure reviews · 2021Review
- Eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with left ventricular assist device.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2021Article
- Awake and aware with ongoing ventricular fibrillation during LVAD treatment: is it possible?BMJ case reports · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewWhile use of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction is recommended, their role in patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) remains controversial, especially with continuous flow (CF) devices. RECENT
findingsVentricular arrhythmias (VA) in LVAD patients are frequent and associated with worse outcomes, especially postoperatively. Data on the role of ICDs in LVAD patients are scarce, based on case reports or small retrospective series. While the majority of LVAD patients currently have an ICD, it seems that some might not derive any benefit, with additional risks in terms of inappropriate shocks, psychological distress, and infections. Some CF-LVAD patients are at high risk of VA and hemodynamic collapse; under those circumstances, an ICD might provide benefits. A randomized-controlled trial of routine ICD implantation in CF-LVAD would be needed to clarify their impact on survival in low risk patients.
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.