ReviewJRSM cardiovascular disease
Electrical cardioversion in patients with left ventricular thrombus: A systematic review of safety and thromboembolic risk.
Review in JRSM cardiovascular disease. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The thromboembolic risk of electrical cardioversion in patients with left-ventricular (LV) thrombus is poorly defined, producing variable clinical practice. We performed a systematic review to synthesize reported thromboembolic outcomes after cardioversion in patients with imaging-documented LV thrombus. Methods: We searched PubMed and Scopus through 25 July 2025 for studies reporting outcomes after external direct-current cardioversion or internal/intra-procedural electrical shocks in patients with known LV thrombus. Case reports and pharmacological cardioversion studies were excluded. The primary outcome was clinically apparent thromboembolic complications. Data were extracted and synthesized narratively. Results: Three retrospective studies met criteria, comprising 68 patients with known, imaging-proven LV thrombus. Thrombus morphology was predominantly laminated/fixed, but about 8% of patients had mobile thrombi in one series. Anticoagulation practices varied; a subset (21%) had no anticoagulation prior to electrical cardioversion. In total, 60 patients underwent direct-current cardioversion while eight patients underwent multiple internal intra-procedural cardioversions in the setting of known LV thrombus. Overall, no thromboembolic events directly attributable to cardioversion were observed over a follow-up period of 3 months to 1 year. Conclusion: Available evidence, although limited, did not identify clinically overt thromboembolic events after electrical cardioversion in patients with known LV thrombus. Decisions should, however, be individualized, imaging-guided, accompanied by optimized anticoagulation whenever possible and multidisciplinary discussions.
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.