ArticleArchivos de cardiologia de Mexico2022
First appropriate implantable defibrillator shocks in patients with Chagasic heart disease
Article in Archivos de cardiologia de Mexico, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatio-temporal distribution of hospitalizations for chronic Chagas disease and risk factors associated with in-hospital mortality and surgical intervention in Chile.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Article
- WHF Recommendations for the Use of Echocardiography in Chagas Disease.Global heart · 2023Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objetivesTo assess if patients with Chagasic heart disease (CHD) received effective automatic implantable defibrillator (AID) shocks earlier than patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD).
methodsRetrospective cohort of patients with CHD and IHD who received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) between 2009 and 2018, in a tertiary hospital. We evaluated the time between the implant of ICD and the first effective shock in patients with CHD and compared it with the IHD control population.
resultsWe included a total of 64 patients, 20 with CHD and 44 with IHD. CHD patients presented earlier an effective shock than patients with IHD during the first year (hazard ratio [HR]: 8.4; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 2.09-34.02; p = 0.0027), and at three years (HR: 4.61; 95%CI: 1.51-14.07; p = 0.0072). 100% of CHD patients who received the ICD as secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death presented an effective shock during the first 26 months of follow-up.
conclusionsPatients with CHD received effective ICD shocks earlier than the IHD patients. All patients with CHD and ICD as secondary prevention had an appropriate ICD shock at short term, representing the highest risk population, and supporting the indication of the device in a setting where randomized clinical trials are lacking.
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.