ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Patients at Transient Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death: State of the Art and Contemporary Clinical Evidence.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sudden cardiac death remains a major mode of cardiovascular mortality, yet the risk is neither constant over time nor adequately represented by left ventricular ejection fraction alone. The weeks after myocardial infarction and the early months after a new diagnosis of cardiomyopathy or acute myocarditis create arrhythmic vulnerability, and recovery with revascularization, guideline-directed medical therapy, rhythm control, or resolution of inflammation may render immediate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation unnecessary or inappropriate. The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) was developed to bridge this interval by providing non-invasive, continuously available detection and shock therapy for sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias. The only randomized trial, VEST, did not significantly reduce arrhythmic death in the intention-to-treat analysis, and therefore does not support indiscriminate WCD prescription after myocardial infarction. Conversely, large registries and contemporary meta-analyses consistently document successful termination of malignant ventricular arrhythmias, clustering of events during the first weeks, and frequent subsequent recovery of systolic function. Economic models from several healthcare systems suggest that WCD use may be cost-effective in selected settings, although estimates are highly dependent on assumptions regarding baseline arrhythmic risk, treatment effectiveness, adherence, and healthcare-system costs, and several analyses have incorporated exposure-based VEST estimates or manufacturer involvement. Overall, current evidence supports the technical efficacy of the WCD for terminating sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias, but observational shock rates do not establish a population-level survival benefit. The most defensible contemporary role of the WCD is therefore as a selective bridge-to-decision strategy in patients with transient or evolving arrhythmic risk, integrating not only LVEF but also substrate, arrhythmic triggers, timing, and clinical trajectory.
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.