ReviewHeart failure reviews2021
Wearable cardioverter defibrillator: bridging for implantable defibrillators in left ventricular assist device patients.
Review in Heart failure reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ventricular arrhythmias following left ventricular assist device implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of incidence and clinical impact.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is currently conflicting data available regarding the use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients. While the benefit of an ICD in heart failure patients is well demonstrated, such benefit has failed to reach the LVAD population. In lack of randomized control trial data on the topic of ICD use in LVAD recipients, major societal guidelines are in disagreement when comes to the topic of routine implantation of a permanent defibrillator in prospective ventricular assist device patients. Alternative permanent defibrillator strategies have been suggested for the LVAD population such as subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) but eligibility of patients for such practice remains disappointing. Although most of the heart failure patients undergoing LVAD implantation already bear an ICD, clinicians are left with the decision of de novo implanting an ICD in an important number of patients. Wearable cardioverter defibrillators could prove beneficial in LVAD recipients by utilizing them as a bridge to decision towards the implantation of a permanent defibrillator.
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.