ArticlePloS one2022
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy after resuscitation from cardiac arrest in vasospastic angina: A retrospective study.
Article in PloS one, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator utilization in coronary artery spasm: A case series of cardiac arrest survivors and a patient with typical angiography.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Coronary artery spasm in cardiac arrest survivors.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 · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with vasospastic angina (VSA) who are resuscitated from sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) are at a high risk of recurrent lethal arrhythmia and cardiovascular events. However, the benefit of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in this population has not been fully elucidated. The present study aimed to analyze the prognostic impact of ICD therapy on patients with VSA and SCA. A total of 280 patients who were resuscitated from SCA and received an ICD for secondary prophylaxis were included in the present multicenter registry. The patients were divided into two groups on the basis of the presence of VSA. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death and appropriate ICD therapy (appropriate anti-tachycardia pacing and shock) for recurrent ventricular arrhythmias. Of 280 patients, 51 (18%) had VSA. Among those without VSA, ischemic cardiomyopathy was the main cause of SCA (38%), followed by non-ischemic cardiomyopathies (18%) and Brugada syndrome (7%). Twenty-three (8%) patients were dead and 72 (26%) received appropriate ICD therapy during a median follow-up period of 3.8 years. There was no significant difference in the incidence of the primary endpoint between patients with and without VSA (24% vs. 33%, p = 0.19). In a cohort of patients who received an ICD for secondary prophylaxis, long-term clinical outcomes were not different between those with VSA and those with other cardiac diseases after SCA, suggesting ICD therapy may be considered in patients with VSA and those with other etiologies who were resuscitated from SCA.
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.