ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2025
Implantable cardiac defibrillator outcomes in octogenarians.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- AI-Enabled Sensor Technologies for Remote Arrhythmic Monitoring in High-Risk Cardiomyopathy Genotypes.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Implantable cardiac defibrillator outcomes in octogenarians.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
- How to indicate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in the aging population.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
- Implantable cardiac defibrillator outcomes in octogenarians.Journal of arrhythmia · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) are essential for preventing sudden cardiac death. Despite inclusion in national guidelines, older adults are often underrepresented in trials. Evaluating ICD use in the aging population, particularly with advancements in heart failure treatment, is crucial. Objective: This study examines outcomes in octogenarians undergoing ICD implantation for primary and secondary prevention, focusing on ICD therapies and mortality timing. Methods: A retrospective observational study at a single Canadian academic center included patients ≥80 years old at ICD implantation, excluding those with <30 days follow-up. Data on demographics, comorbidities, mortality, and ICD therapies were collected from electronic medical records. Clinical frailty was assessed using the Dalhousie Clinical Frailty Scale. Results: We identified 143 patients (mean age 82.6 ± 2.2 years, 14% female) from May 2015 to October 2023. ICDs were implanted for primary prevention in 63 patients (44%) and secondary prevention in 80 patients (56%). Thirty-seven patients were excluded due to insufficient follow-up. ICD therapies occurred in 30 patients (25%) through anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) and in 19 patients (18%) through shocks. The mean time to first ATP was 16.9 ± 21.0 months, and to first shock, 21.2 ± 23.6 months. Among 66 patients with mortality data, 19 (24%) died at 31.3 ± 30.4 months. Patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy experienced earlier shocks (7.7 vs. 32.2 months, Conclusion: Elderly patients undergoing ICD implantation have multiple comorbidities and competing causes of mortality. Device use is overall infrequent but occurs well before observed mortality. Prospective clinical trials are needed to determine ICD benefits in this age cohort.
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.