ArticleScientific reports2025
Wearable cardioverter defibrillator after ICD-system explantation: data from a multicenter registry.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Wearable cardioverter defibrillator for transient arrhythmic risk and sudden cardiac death prevention: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis.Open heart · 2025Pooled it
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data on the use of the wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) among patients after cardiac implantable electronic device explantation of 1- to 3-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator systems (ICD) are sparse. Accordingly, several guidelines give a different recommendation regarding WCD indication in this cohort. We aimed to study the baseline characteristics and outcome of patients treated with WCD after ICD explantation. The primary outcome is appropriate WCD shock. Within a multicenter registry 109 patients received a WCD to bridge the time after ICD-system explantation until reimplantation due to a persistent ICD-indication. The mean follow-up was 824 ± 773 days. In addition to ventricular tachyarrhythmias and/or WCD shocks during WCD wear time, also the rate of rehospitalization for ventricular tachyarrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, stroke and congestive heart failure after ICD-reimplantation was evaluated. Patients had a mean age of 65 ± 14 years, and were hospitalized for 21 ± 15 days. The index left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was at baseline 35.7 ± 14.1% and 35.7 ± 14.2% at short-term follow-up. Mean wear time of the WCD was 61 ± 46 days after ICD-system explantation. During that time an appropriate WCD shock was documented in 7.3% of patients. Up to 80.6% of patients after ICD-system explantation were re-implanted. The rates of rehospitalization due to ventricular tachyarrhythmias, heart failure and atrial fibrillation were 7.3%, 6.8% and 4.1%, respectively. After ICD-reimplantation the rate of appropriate shocks was 12/89 (13.4%). Occurrence of malignant ventricular tachyarrythmia after ICD-system explantation is high and the use of WCD among these patients could be beneficial in preventing sudden cardiac death.
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.