ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Prevention of Early Sudden Cardiac Death after Myocardial Infarction Using the Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator-Results from a Real-World Cohort.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Patients at Transient Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death: State of the Art and Contemporary Clinical Evidence.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Variabiliy in Prescribing Patterns of Wearable Cardiac Defibrillators: Current Data, Guidelines, Challenges, and Controversies.Current cardiology reports · 2025Review
- False Alarms in Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillators-A Relevant Issue or an Insignificant Observation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAfter acute myocardial infarction (AMI), patients are at risk of sudden cardiac death. The VEST trial failed to show a reduction in arrhythmic mortality in AMI patients with an LVEF ≤ 35% prescribed with a WCD, having a lower-than-expected WCD wearing compliance.
objectivesThe aim was to investigate on outcomes of patients in a real-world Austrian cohort with good compliance.
methodsA retrospective analysis of all eligible Austrian WCD patients according to the VEST trial inclusion and exclusion criteria between 2010 and 2020 was performed.
resultsIn total, 105 Austrian patients (64 ± 11 years, 12% female; LVEF 28 ± 6%) received a WCD for a median of 69 (1; 277) days after AMI (wearing duration 23.5 (0; 24) hours/day). Within the first 90 days, 4/105 (3.8%) patients received 9 appropriate shocks (2 (1; 5) shocks). No inappropriate shocks were delivered, and 3/105 (2.9%) patients died during follow-up. Arrhythmic mortality (1.9% Austria vs. 1.6% VEST,
conclusionsThe WCD is a safe treatment option in a highly selected cohort of patients with LVEF ≤ 35% after AMI. However, despite excellent WCD wearing duration in our cohort, the arrhythmic mortality rate was not significantly different.
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.