ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2022
Prediction Efficiency of MADIT-ICD Benefit Score for Outcome in Asian Patients with Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Benefit of implantable cardioverter defibrillator use in Japanese patients based on modified MADIT-ICD benefit score.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Not all patients with heart failure derive consistent benefit from prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). We aimed to evaluate the role of MADIT-ICD benefit score in risk-stratifying in Asian patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%. Methods: In this two-center, retrospective study, a total of 136 patients with LVEF ≤35% who received an ICD for primary prevention were enrolled. The endpoints were defined as the ventricular tachycardia ≥200bpm (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) and non-arrhythmic death. Based on the MADIT-ICD benefit score system, all patients were categorized into three groups: highest benefit group (n = 41), intermediate benefit group (n = 80), and lowest benefit group (n = 15). Results: Forty patients experienced VT/VF and seven died of non-arrhythmic causes during a median follow-up of 44.8 ± 28.9 months. Kaplan-Meier curves showed that patients in highest benefit group had a worse VT/VF occurrence compared to those in other groups. In the highest benefit group, the predicted risk of VT/VF was 17-fold higher than the risk of non-arrhythmic mortality (41.5% vs 2.4%, P < 0.001). In the intermediate benefit group, the predicted risk of VT/VF was 4.2-fold higher than the risk of non-arrhythmic mortality (26.3% vs 6.3%, P = 0.001). In the lowest benefit group, however, the difference in the corresponding predicted risks was attenuated without statistically significant (13.3% vs 5.1%, P = 0.56). Conclusion: We demonstrate that MADIT-ICD benefit score can be used for the assessment of ICD primary prevention benefits in Asian patients with LVEF ≤35%.
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.