ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2025
Return-to-play in athletes with transvenous and subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillator: A meta-analysis.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Athletes with Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: A Practical Framework for Device Selection, Programming, and Return-to-Sport Risk Mitigation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Multidisciplinary Management Enables Safe Return to Sports in a Pediatric Sudden Cardiac Death Survivor.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- Return-to-play in athletes with transvenous and subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillator: A meta-analysis.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Arrhythmia in athletes can be career-threatening, and those with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) face significant challenges in returning to play due to concerns about safety, efficacy, and arrhythmic risk. Since the last meta-analysis, additional studies have been published, providing updated data that suggest both transvenous and subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICDs) may allow for a safe return to sports through individualized decision-making. This meta-analysis aimed to reassess the safety and efficacy of ICDs in athletes returning to play. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Six cohort studies including 1183 athletes with ICDs were analyzed, with five of them on transvenous ICDs and one on S-ICD. Primary outcomes included rates of appropriate and inappropriate shocks, shock-related physical injury, cardiac adverse events, and sports discontinuation. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity. Results: The pooled rate of appropriate shocks was 13% (95% CI 0.11-0.16), while inappropriate shocks occurred in 4% (95% CI 0.02-0.11). No shock-related physical injuries or cardiac adverse events during or shortly after sports were reported (0%). The rate of sports discontinuation was 2%, increasing to4% after sensitivity analysis. Transvenous ICDs showed lower inappropriate shock rates compared to S-ICD. Conclusion: ICD use in athletes returning to play appears safe, with low adverse event rates and minimal sports discontinuation. These findings support tailored return-to-play decisions based on arrhythmia type, ICD programming, and psychological support, aligning with the 2024 HRS Class IIa recommendation.
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.