ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2026
Appropriate ICD Therapies in Primary Prevention: A Propensity-Matched Comparison of Contemporary and Historic Heart Failure Cohorts.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), a substantial proportion of deaths are arrhythmic. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are recommended for primary prevention in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% despite guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), but landmark trials predate widespread use of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), raising uncertainty about arrhythmic risk in the contemporary treatment era. Methods: We retrospectively studied consecutive HFrEF patients undergoing primary-prevention ICD implantation at a single center (2015-2022), categorized into historical-era and contemporary-era cohorts by ARNI/SGLT2i adoption. Propensity-score matching balanced baseline characteristics. The primary endpoint was time to first appropriate ICD therapy (antitachycardia pacing or shock). Results: Of 289 patients (mean age 62 ± 11 years, 82% male), 234 (117 per group) remained after matching. Mean follow-up was 51 months. Appropriate ICD therapy incidence did not differ significantly between contemporary-era and historical-era cohorts (hazard ratio [HR] 1.52, 95% CI 0.84-2.72; Conclusion: ICD therapy rates were not significantly different between the contemporary-era and historical-era cohorts, a finding robust to sensitivity and competing-risk analyses. These results should be interpreted cautiously, as the study may be underpowered to detect modest differences, and clinically relevant effects cannot be excluded.
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.