ArticleThe Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management2022
Outcomes Following Standardized Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Reprogramming.
Article in The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that programming implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) with longer detection intervals and higher detection rates results in significant reductions in the delivery of inappropriate therapy without increasing the number of adverse events. Despite these findings, however, implementation of this evidence-based programming, particularly in previously implanted ICDs, remains inconsistent throughout the United States, with significant provider-dependent variability. We developed an institutionally standardized ICD reprogramming protocol for primary prevention ICDs utilizing high detection rates and long detection intervals, then prospectively evaluated outcomes in patients programmed with this protocol compared to a historical cohort. A total of 193 patients with primary prevention ICDs underwent standardized reprogramming and were monitored over a 1-year period. A historical cohort of 254 patients with ICD with non-standardized programming implanted prior to initiation of the standardized protocol were used as a comparison group. The primary outcomes were rates of appropriate or inappropriate ICD therapy. Secondary outcomes were rates of syncope, emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) visits, hospitalization, and death. All patients seen in the device clinic who qualified for device standardization were reprogrammed according to the previously developed evidence-based, institutionally standardized protocol. Patients who underwent standardized reprogramming had a lower prevalence of inappropriate therapy compared to the historical cohort (0% vs. 2.4%,
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.