Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39076214›Full record

ArticleReviews in cardiovascular medicine2022

Optimal Timing of Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Andreea Maria Ursaru, Irina Iuliana Costache, Antoniu Octavian Petris, Mihai Stefan Cristian Haba, Ovidiu Mitu, Adrian Crisan, Nicolae Dan Tesloianu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Andreea Maria UrsaruDepartment of Cardiology, Emergency Clinical Hospital "Sf. Spiridon", 700111 Iași, Romania.
Irina Iuliana CostacheDepartment of Cardiology, Emergency Clinical Hospital "Sf. Spiridon", 700111 Iași, Romania.
Antoniu Octavian PetrisDepartment of Cardiology, Emergency Clinical Hospital "Sf. Spiridon", 700111 Iași, Romania.
Mihai Stefan Cristian HabaDepartment of Cardiology, Emergency Clinical Hospital "Sf. Spiridon", 700111 Iași, Romania.
Ovidiu MituDepartment of Cardiology, Emergency Clinical Hospital "Sf. Spiridon", 700111 Iași, Romania.
Adrian CrisanDepartment of Cardiology, Emergency Clinical Hospital "Sf. Spiridon", 700111 Iași, Romania.
Nicolae Dan TesloianuDepartment of Cardiology, Emergency Clinical Hospital "Sf. Spiridon", 700111 Iași, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) early after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is still a challenge, without clear recommendations in spite of the high incidence of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, as implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) placement is not indicated in the first 40 days after an AMI; this timing is aleatory and it is owed to fact that the two pivotal studies for evaluation of ICDs in primary prevention, MADIT and MADIT II, excluded the patients within three, respectively four weeks after AMI. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, single-center study that included 77 patients with AMI. All patients were monitored by continuous ECG in the first week after the event. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed at discharge and 40 days after the event. Patients with ejection fraction of 35% or less as assessed by 2D echocardiography 40 days after the MI, which received an ICD for the primary prevention of SCD, were included in the study. The subjects were followed for a median of 38 months, by means of device interrogation and echocardiography. Results: We divided our patients into two groups: in the first group, with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) under 30% after MI, all patients remained in the reduced ejection fraction heart failure category, with an increase from an initial mean of 18.93 Conclusions: The patients could benefit from ICD implant earlier than stated in the actual guidelines, since there are insufficient data in the literature for the waiting time of 40 days. Correlated with the increased risk of SCD in the first months post myocardial infarction, the present study proves the benefit of early ICD implantation considering that all our patients with a low ejection fraction immediately after infarction remained in the same category and the great majority (96.1%) required the implantation of an ICD after 40 days. Thus, we could avoid exposing our patients at risk of SCD for an unnecessary prolonged period, and choose early ICD implantation.

Indexed as

early ICD implantationICD shockICD therapieslow ejection fraction heart failuremyocardial infarction arrhythmiasprimary preventionsudden cardiac death

Identifiers

PMID39076214
PMCPMC11273764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.