ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2022
Outcomes after transvenous defibrillator implantation in cardiac sarcoidosis: A systematic review.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Redefining Cardiac Sarcoidosis with Advanced Imaging and Therapeutic Strategies.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2026Review
- Device Therapy in Cardiac Sarcoidosis: Current Review, Challenges, and Future Prospects.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2024Review
- Outcomes after transvenous defibrillator implantation in cardiac sarcoidosis: A systematic review.Journal of arrhythmia · 2022Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Sarcoidosis is a systemic inflammatory disorder associated with ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) and sudden death in the context of cardiac involvement. Guidelines advocate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation in specific subcohorts, but there is a paucity of data on outcomes. Methods and Results: A systematic review was performed to assess outcomes in patients with definite or probable cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) treated with ICD. Observational studies were identified from multiple databases from inception to 21st May 2021. Outcomes of interest included appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies in addition to all-cause mortality. Study quality was assessed individually using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS).Eight studies were identified comprising 530 patients, with follow-up period of 24-66 months (weighted average 40 months). Mean age was 53.9 years with ejection fraction of 41.3%. Overall incidence of appropriate therapy was 38.1% during follow-up. Left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) with ejection fraction <40% was a predictor of appropriate therapy in the majority of studies, as were sustained VAs during electrophysiological testing (EP) in one study. There was no interaction with device indication (i.e. primary or secondary). Where documented, inappropriate therapy was primarily driven by atrial arrhythmias. All-cause mortality was 6.0% over a median follow-up period of 42 months. Only three studies achieved good quality in the comparability domain of NOS. Conclusions: Appropriate ICD therapy in patients with CS is commonly associated with LVSD, which can act as a surrogate for scar burden. The utility of EP testing in this setting remains unclear.
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.