Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41307590›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2025

Variabiliy in Prescribing Patterns of Wearable Cardiac Defibrillators: Current Data, Guidelines, Challenges, and Controversies.

Mickael Guglieri, Thibault Lenormand, Alexandre Bodin, Arnaud Bisson, Laurent Fauchier

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mickael GuglieriService de Cardiologie, Faculté de Médecine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Trousseau, Université François Rabelais, Tours, France.
Thibault LenormandService de Cardiologie, Faculté de Médecine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Trousseau, Université François Rabelais, Tours, France.
Alexandre BodinService de Cardiologie, Faculté de Médecine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Trousseau, Université François Rabelais, Tours, France.
Arnaud BissonService de Cardiologie, Faculté de Médecine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Trousseau, Université François Rabelais, Tours, France.
Laurent FauchierService de Cardiologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Trousseau, Tours, France. lfau@univ-tours.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Arrhythmias, CardiacDeath, Sudden, CardiacDefibrillatorsElectric CountershockPractice Patterns, Physicians'Wearable Electronic DevicesCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicArrhythmic deathCost-effectivenessHeart failureVentricular arrythmiasWearable cardioverter defibrillator

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.