ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Comparison of the Outcome of Patients Protected by the Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator (WCD) for <90 Wear Days
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-utility analysis of the wearable cardioverter defibrillator in high-risk post-myocardial infarction patients in the Spanish healthcare system.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Wearable cardioverter defibrillator after ICD-system explantation: data from a multicenter registry.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cost-Utility Analysis of LifeVest® in Post-Myocardial Infarction Patients at Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death in England.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2025Article
- Assessing physical activity with the wearable cardioverter defibrillator in patients with newly diagnosed heart failure.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimThe wearable cardioverter/defibrillator (WCD) is recommended to prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD). Guidelines suggest a 90 days' period, but prolongation of WCD wear time until increasing the ejection fraction (≥35%) might be suggested. PATIENTS AND
methodsA cohort of 153 patients with prescribed WCD were divided into two groups: A <90 wear days' group (n=112) vs. ≥90 wear days' group (n=41) and followed.
resultsIn the first group, WCD shock occurred in 3.6% of patients, 47.3% improved in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after 3 months, and 37.5% had a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation with appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shock events occurring in 6 patients. Two of these patients already received WCD shock therapy due to ventricular fibrillation. A 20.5% improved in LVEF after 6-12 months, but 73% were already implanted with ICD. In the second group, 4.9% received WCD shock, 34.1% improved in LVEF after 3 months, 48.8% were implanted with ICD, and 2 had ICD shocks during follow up time. LVEF improvement after 6-12 months occurred in 26.8%. ICD implantation was prevented in 7.3% of patients due to LVEF recovery.
conclusionProlonging wearing days of WCD may reduce the number of inappropriate ICD implantation.
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.