ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2025
Association of Risk Factors and Cardiac Outcomes in Patients With Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: HINODE Study Sub Analysis.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPrimary analysis of the HINODE study revealed that mortality and ventricular tachyarrhythmia event rates for patients with primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in Japan were comparable to those of Western patients. Sub-analysis aimed to evaluate event rates in relation to accumulated risk factors (RFs) (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35%, New York Heart Association class III/IV, left bundle branch block/wide QRS, renal dysfunction, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, age > 70 years, and smoking). METHODS AND
resultsImplantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) (N = 102) and cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) (N = 69) enrollees were evaluated for first appropriately treated ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation (VT/VF), recurrent heart failure (HF) hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality. Event rates were compared for patients with lower-risk (2-3 RFs) and higher-risk (4-5 RFs) using time to event analyses. The ICD-cohort contained 50 (49%) lower-risk and 52 (51%) higher-risk patients, and the CRT-D-cohort 21 (30%) lower-risk and 48 (70%) higher-risk patients. Over 24 months, no significant difference was observed in the VT/VF event rate among the higher-risk group compared to the lower-risk group for either device cohort (ICD: 17% vs. 10%, p = 0.61; CRT-D: 6% vs. 5%, p = 0.79). Similarly, no significant difference was observed in the rate of all-cause mortality, although higher-risk patients trended towards more mortality (ICD: 15% vs. 7%, p = 0.15; CRT-D: 13% vs. 5%, p = 0.33) For the ICD cohort, the risk of HF hospitalization was 2.24 (95% CI: 1.24-4.03) times greater in the higher-risk group compared to the lower-risk group and among those hospitalized for HF, the length of stay was significantly longer for the higher-risk group (median 27 days per year vs. 10 days per year, p = 0.013). No significant difference in the rate of HF hospitalizations was detected for the CRT-D cohort.
conclusionThe implantation of ICD should be considered despite the number of RFs to prevent sudden cardiac death. Proper CRT-D implantation may reduce the number of RFs over time and shorten the duration of HF-hospitalization.
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.