ArticleCureus2025
Should LifeVest Be Worn During Shower: A Case Report.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD), or LifeVest (ZOLL Medical Corporation, an Asahi Kasei company, Tokyo, Japan), is designed for continuous monitoring and immediate treatment of patients at high risk of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA). Due to a lack of water resistance and inability to operate safely in wet conditions, current guidelines recommend wearing the device at all times except for short periods, such as during showering. We present the case of an 88-year-old male with complex coronary artery disease, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and permanent atrial fibrillation who experienced cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation (V-Fib) during a shower when not wearing his LifeVest. Immediately after he lost consciousness, his wife promptly reattached the LifeVest, which stabilized his condition with a shock delivered by the device. This case highlights potential risks during device-free periods and the limited data on compliance and outcomes in these intervals. Further study is needed to assess risks and explore solutions that allow for the device's removal for short periods and enhance the patient's safety.
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.