ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
High Incidence of Inappropriate Alarms in Patients with Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Findings from the Swiss WCD Registry.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A review on wearable cardioverter-defibrillators in clinical practice for sudden cardiac death prevention and heart failure management.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 · 2025Review
- Predictors of Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure Patients with Indications for ICD Implantation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Association of BMI with adherence and outcome in heart failure patients treated with wearable cardioverter defibrillator.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- False Alarms in Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillators-A Relevant Issue or an Insignificant Observation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Does Patient Compliance Influence Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator Effectiveness? A Single-Center Experience.Journal of clinical 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
20 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) uses surface electrodes to detect arrhythmia before initiating a treatment sequence. However, it is also prone to inappropriate detection due to artefacts.
objectiveThe aim of this study is to assess the alarm burden in patients and its impact on clinical outcomes.
methodsPatients from the nationwide Swiss WCD Registry were included. Clinical characteristics and data were obtained from the WCDs. Arrhythmia recordings ≥30 s in length were analysed and categorized as VT/VF, atrial fibrillation (AF), supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) or artefact.
resultsA total of 10653 device alarms were documented in 324 of 456 patients (71.1%) over a mean WCD wear-time of 2.0 ± 1.6 months. Episode duration was 30 s or more in 2996 alarms (28.2%). One hundred and eleven (3.7%) were VT/VF episodes. The remaining recordings were inappropriate detections (2736 (91%) due to artefacts; 117 (3.7%) AF; 48 (1.6%) SVT). Two-hundred and seven patients (45%) had three or more alarms per month. Obesity was significantly associated with three or more alarms per month (
conclusionsIn patients using WCDs, alarms emitted by the device and impending inappropriate shocks were frequent and most commonly caused by artefacts. A high alarm burden was associated with obesity but did not lead to a decreased adherence.
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.