ReviewInternational journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease2023
Ventricular arrhythmia in congenital heart diseases with a systemic right ventricle.
Review in International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utilization and complications of catheter ablation therapy for cardiac arrhythmias in congenital heart disease: a retrospective cross-sectional study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- [Consensus recommendation of the Austrian Society of Cardiology: anatomy, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of arrhythmias in adult patients with congenital heart disease].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Review
- Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in Patients With Transposition of the Great Arteries: A Systematic Review of the Literature.CJC pediatric and congenital heart disease · 2025Review
- A change of heart: Empowering adults with congenital heart disease for a healthy change.International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Congenital heart disease (CHD) often involves the systemic right ventricle (SRV), which is the morphological right ventricle that supports systemic circulation. SRV patients are at a higher risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) than other adult CHD patients and continues to be a significant cause of death in this aging population. However, the pathophysiology of ventricular arrhythmias in SRV is still not fully understood, and there may be differences between subtypes of CHD. Although these events are rare, predicting them is challenging. This review discusses contemporary strategies for assessing and preventing the risk of ventricular arrhythmias in SRV patients. Several risk factors have been identified to be associated with ventricular arrhythmias in patients with SRV. A recent risk stratification model combines independently associated factors into a risk score, and subpulmonary left ventricle dysfunction is emerging as a critical factor in risk assessment. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, biomarkers, and genetic data may refine the ability to predict ventricular arrhythmias in SRV. However, the question of whether implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) should be used as a preventive measure in this cohort remains unanswered. Multicenter studies are needed to evaluate risk models and ICD use in this aging population. Given that ICDs have drawbacks, such as a high rate of inappropriate shocks and late lead-related complications, shared clinical decision-making is crucial when considering their use. The review emphasizes the need for further research in this area to improve the identification of patients at risk of clinical ventricular arrhythmias and to develop effective prevention strategies.
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.