ArticleCardiovascular diabetology2025
Indications, prognosis, and complications of de Novo implantable cardioverter defibrillators in patients with and without type 2 diabetes: a nationwide registry-based cohort study.
Article in Cardiovascular diabetology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of tachyarrhythmias and more frequently require implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) than those without diabetes (No-DM). This study aims to investigate whether there is a difference in the indication, prognosis and complication rates for ICD-implantation between patients with and without type 2 diabetes in different ICD prevention groups. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsThis Swedish retrospective cohort study included patients with de novo ICDs implanted between 2010 and 2021. Data from six national registries were analyzed to compare type 2 diabetes and No-DM patients regarding indications, complications, and outcomes (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE], all-cause mortality). Subgroup analyses compared type 2 diabetes and No-DM by primary (PP) or secondary prevention (SP) ICD indication, and within the type 2 diabetes and No-DM groups (PP vs. SP).
resultsThe study cohort consisted of 12,885 patients, including 2,843 with type 2 diabetes. Patients with diabetes had a mean age of 67.9 years and 85.4% were male, compared with 62.1 years and 78.1% among No-DM patients (both p < 0.0001). PP was more frequent in patients with type 2 diabetes (62.7%) than No-DM (54.4%, p < 0.0001). Ischemic heart disease was the most common etiology in both patients with/without type 2 diabetes (47.7% vs. 32.6%, p < 0.0001). Non-ischemic etiologies were more common in No-DM patients, e.g. dilated cardiomyopathy (15.3% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.007). Type 2 diabetes patients had a higher adjusted risk of all-cause mortality (Hazard ratio 1.95 [95% CI: 1.81-2.11]) and MACE (1.87 [1.71-2.05]), with a more pronounced risk in SP than PP. Infection rates were comparable between patients with type 2 diabetes and No-DM (1.1% vs. 1.3%).
conclusionsPatients with type 2 diabetes more often received ICDs for PP and ischemic indications than No-DM patients and had a worse prognosis despite similar one-year infection risk. This likely reflects greater comorbidity burden and diabetes-specific factors, indicating the need for tailored risk management strategies beyond device implantation in patients with type 2 diabetes.
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.