ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2025
Variabiliy in Prescribing Patterns of Wearable Cardiac Defibrillators: Current Data, Guidelines, Challenges, and Controversies.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewWearable cardioverter-defibrillators (WCDs) offer a non-invasive, temporary safeguard against sudden cardiac death in patients with transient high-risk conditions, but real-world prescribing is highly variable due to inconsistent evidence of benefit. This review examines current WCD evidence and guideline recommendations, highlighting recent clinical findings, international guideline discrepancies, health economic data, and controversies underlying heterogeneous prescribing practices. RECENT
findingsObservational studies and meta-analyses show that WCDs effectively terminate malignant arrhythmias and that arrhythmic death during WCD use is rare (~ 0.7% over 3 months). Approximately 5% of patients receive appropriate WCD shocks within 3 months. However, the VEST randomized trial did not demonstrate a significant reduction in arrhythmic mortality, likely due in part to low patient adherence (median 18 h/day). Post-hoc analyses of VEST suggested potential mortality reduction with better compliance. Reflecting the evidence gap, U.S. guidelines (2017) granted WCD a Class IIa/IIb role in several transient high-risk scenarios, whereas recent European guidelines (2021–2022) are more restrictive after VEST’s neutral results. Modeling studies indicate WCD use can be cost-effective in select high-risk populations, but the device’s high cost ($3,734/month; ~$223k per shock) raises concerns for broader use. WCD prescribing remains highly heterogeneous worldwide due to divergent guidelines, uncertain mortality benefit, and variable patient selection. While WCDs are generally safe and can bridge patients during reversible risk periods, definitive survival benefit is unproven. Ongoing debates about appropriate patient selection and cost-effectiveness underscore the need for further trials and unified guidance. In the meantime, health policy should encourage prudent, case-by-case use of WCDs focused on those most likely to benefit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41307590What 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.