ArticleHeart rhythm O22024
Temporal changes in device-derived daily activity related to ventricular arrhythmias from the CERTITUDE registry.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- ICD support groups: Are they still relevant now?Heart rhythm O2 · 2025Article
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: There have been limited data examining the temporal relationship between device-derived daily activity and ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). Objective: We aimed to assess whether activity predicted VAs or VAs predicted changes in activity. Methods: The CERTITUDE registry includes over 55,000 implanted devices active on Home Monitoring. Daily data on activity are captured by a 1-axis accelerometer. Temporal changes in activity during treated VAs were analyzed using the first event and 7-day activity windows (baseline, pre-event, and postevent). Baseline period was defined as 31 to 38 days prior to VA. VAs were categorized by heart rate (≤200 beats/min, >200 beats/min) and treatment (shock or antitachycardia pacing). Differences were assessed using the binomial proportion test and case-crossover analysis. Results: A total of 5631 devices (3688 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, 1943 cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators) were analyzed with a cumulative follow-up duration of 18,354 years (5.6 million days). Patients with VA events >200 beats/min with shock (n = 593) had a significant decline in activity post-VA with a median -8.7% reduction (interquartile range -24.6% to 7.3%, Conclusion: In the CERTITUDE registry, we have shown a temporal decline in device-derived activity following VA events >200 beats/min and for VA events <200 beats/min treated with a shock, but we did not find changes in activity preceding a shock event.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.