ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Effect of sacubitril/valsartan and SGLT2 inhibitors on arrhythmia burden in ICD patients.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2026. 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
backgroundThis study aimed to examine whether the use of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and/or sacubitril/valsartan in individuals with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was associated with differences in pathological rhythm burden, specifically atrial fibrillation (AF), ventricular tachycardia (VT), and ventricular fibrillation (VF), during follow-up.
methodsData from 275 patients who underwent ICD implantation between 2022 and 2025 were analyzed retrospectively. The primary endpoint was change in device-detected arrhythmic burden, categorized as unchanged/increased, 0-50% reduction, 50-100% reduction, or arrhythmia-free status during 12-month follow-up. The secondary endpoint was change in LVEF (ΔEF). Associations between medical therapies and EF change were assessed using multivariable linear regression models adjusted for demographic and clinical covariates.
resultsOverall, mean LVEF increased significantly during follow-up (ΔEF 9.7 ± 8.7%, p < 0.001). In adjusted analyses, ARNI use was independently associated with greater EF improvement (B = 10.647, p < 0.001), whereas SGLT2i therapy alone was not significantly associated with ΔEF. In unadjusted analyses, both ARNI and SGLT2i therapies were associated with a higher likelihood of substantial reduction in arrhythmic burden and arrhythmia-free status (p < 0.001 for both). Patients receiving combined ARNI and SGLT2i therapy demonstrated the highest proportion of arrhythmia-free status during follow-up.
conclusionIn this retrospective cohort of ICD recipients with HFrEF, ARNI therapy was independently associated with greater improvement in LVEF, while both ARNI and SGLT2i use were associated with lower device-detected arrhythmic burden in unadjusted analyses. Prospective studies are required to determine causality and clarify the independent antiarrhythmic effects of contemporary guideline-directed therapies in ICD populations.
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.