ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator efficacy in ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy in patients with heart failure.
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 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.
- Redefining Sudden Cardiac Death Risk Stratification in Dilated Cardiomyopathy: An Integrative Approach.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Current Status of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (ICDs)/Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With Defibrillators (CRT-Ds) for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Review
- CHAFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- CRT-D or CRT-P: When There Is a Dilemma and How to Solve It.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The role of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in preventing sudden cardiac death in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is well-established, particularly in ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). However, the benefit of ICDs in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of ICDs in HFrEF patients with ischemic versus non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. A total of 1271 patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% were analyzed, of whom 46.3% received ICD implantation. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, advanced heart failure therapies, and ventricular arrhythmias. In patients with ICM, ICD implantation significantly reduced the risk of the primary endpoint (HR 0.717, 95% CI 0.595-0.861; p = 0.0004). However, in NICM patients, ICD therapy did not significantly reduce mortality or ventricular arrhythmias (HR 0.767, 95% CI 0.573-1.026; p = 0.074). Among 103 patients whose LVEF improved above 35% and who were excluded from the primary analysis, ICD implantation was associated with a survival advantage in NICM (HR 0.645, 95% CI 0.478-0.870; p = 0.0041). In NICM patients, independent predictors of the primary endpoint included NYHA class III-IV (HR 1.934, 95% CI 1.302-2.871; p = 0.001), moderate to severe mitral regurgitation (HR 1.956, 95% CI 1.224-3.126; p = 0.005), lower TAPSE (HR 0.945, 95% CI 0.904-0.987; p = 0.011), and elevated NT-proBNP (log-transformed) (HR 1.531, 95% CI 1.074-2.183; p = 0.019). A multivariate risk score developed through logistic regression in NICM patients with LVEF < 50% demonstrated high predictive accuracy for the primary outcome (AUC: 0.819, 95% CI 0.778-0.856). In conclusion, while ICDs confer clear survival benefits in ICM, their efficacy in NICM remains uncertain. Refinement of patient selection criteria, particularly in NICM, is warranted as modern heart failure therapies continue to evolve.
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.