ReviewHerzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie2025
[Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in patients with left ventricular assist devices : Current controversies].
Review in Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeft ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are used to treat patients with advanced heart failure. A significant fraction of these patients simultaneously fulfill the indication for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).
objectivesIt is currently unclear whether patients require an ICD after LVAD implantation. In addition, it remains uncertain whether patients with an LVAD are suitable candidates for a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe aforementioned questions were addresses using studies, case reports, and our own experience.
resultsStudies have yielded varying findings on the above question. While some investigations suggest that an ICD may also be beneficial for LVAD patients, other studies highlight potential risks with limited benefit. This underscores the complexity of clinical decision-making in this specific patient cohort. S‑ICDs can suffer from significant functional impairments after LVAD implantation, making this combination controversial.
conclusionsDue to the inconclusiveness of current studies, a general recommendation regarding the role of an ICD (both conventional and S‑ICD) after LVAD implantation cannot be established at this time. Therefore, it should involve individualized and interdisciplinary decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40402265What 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.