ArticleEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2025
Implantable cardioverter defibrillators for long QT syndrome and catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia? (Not so fast, Louis).
Article in Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Few medical decisions have a greater impact on the life of patients affected by either long QT syndrome (LQTS) or catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) as the one to recommend an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or not. If the decision is correct, a life might be saved or a litany of ICD-related complications might be avoided. If it is wrong, well you can fill in the blanks. Many physicians take the fastest and simplest road by recommending an ICD which represents 'double protection': for the patients and for themselves. Our opinion is that this requires a very careful consideration about the pros and cons and should be taken neither lightly nor quickly. Moreover, there is another side to this moon, which also requires more thought than usually assumed. As to LQTS and CPVT, the current data strongly indicate that when high risk patients are treated with either combination drug therapy comprising beta blockers and mexiletine (LQTS) or beta blockers and flecainide (CPVT) or triple therapy with left cardiac sympathetic denervation as the treatment intensifier, mortality is close to zero and most patients have no life-threatening events. Thus, we stand by our view that most patients still do not need and should not receive an ICD. However, sometimes patients are desperately worried for the fear of dying suddenly and ask for an ICD despite being at low risk. Their request should be listened to, respected, and considered with empathy because immortality cannot be guaranteed. We believe that both expertise and compassion are quintessential to practicing the science and art of medicine.
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.