ArticleESC heart failure2025
Benefit of implantable cardioverter defibrillator use in Japanese patients based on modified MADIT-ICD benefit score.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2025. 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.
- Survival benefit of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator/cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator: Analysis of the Japan cardiac device treatment registry and Japanese cardiac registry of heart failure in cardiology.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
- Benefit of implantable cardioverter defibrillator use in Japanese patients based on modified MADIT-ICD benefit score.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe MADIT-ICD benefit score is used to stratify the risk of life-threatening arrhythmia and non-arrhythmic mortality. We sought to develop an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) benefit-prediction score for Japanese patients with ICDs.
methodsPatients who underwent ICD implantation as primary prophylaxis were retrospectively enrolled. Based on their MADIT-ICD benefit scores, we developed a modified MADIT-ICD benefit score adapted to the Japanese population. The primary endpoints were appropriate ICD therapy and all-cause death without appropriate ICD therapy (non-arrhythmic death). We used the Fine and Gray multivariate model and Cox proportional hazard regression to identify factors for adjusting the MADIT-ICD benefit-risk score specifically for the Japanese population. The scoring points for the original MADIT-ICD benefit score were adjusted to optimal points based on the multivariate analysis results in the population.
resultsThe study enrolled 167 patients [age, 61.9 ± 12.3 years; male individuals, 138 (82.6%); cardiac resynchronization therapy, 73 (43.7%); ischaemic cardiomyopathy, 53 (31.7%)]. Fourteen patients received anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) therapy, and 23 received shock therapy as the initial appropriate ICD therapy. Non-arrhythmic deaths occurred in 37 patients. The original MADIT-ICD benefit score could not stratify non-arrhythmic mortality in the Japanese population. The patients were reclassified into three groups according to the modified MADIT-ICD benefit score. The modified MADIT-ICD benefit score could effectively stratify the incidence of appropriate ICD therapy and non-arrhythmic mortality. In the highest-benefit group, the 10 year cumulative rates of appropriate ICD therapy and non-arrhythmic mortality were 56.8% and 12.9%, respectively (P < 0.01). In the intermediate-benefit group, these rates were 20.2% and 40.2% (P = 0.01). In the lowest-benefit group, the incidence of non-arrhythmic deaths was 68.1%, and no patient received appropriate ICD therapy.
conclusionsThe modified MADIT-ICD benefit score may be useful for stratifying ICD candidates in the Japanese population.
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.