SynthesisESC heart failure2026
Time to rethink ICD indications in non-ishaemic cardiomyopathy? Evidence from a meta-analysis across therapeutic eras.
Synthesis in ESC heart failure, 2026. 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.
- Real-world characteristics and management of ventricular tachycardias in ICD patients: Data from the VIDEO registry.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) reduce sudden cardiac death (SCD) in non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICM), but most evidence predates comprehensive guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). We quantified the relative and absolute survival benefit of primary-prevention ICDs in NICM across therapeutic eras and explored how contemporary GDMT modifies absolute benefit. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL through March 2025 and included randomized controlled trials comparing prophylactic ICD implantation vs control in NICM with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%. Three trials (DEFINITE, SCD-HeFT NICM subgroup, and DANISH) contributed to the quantitative synthesis. ICD therapy reduced all-cause mortality (pooled hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.95) and SCD (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.70). Five-year absolute risk reduction (ARR) was 5.9% (NNT 17) in SCD-HeFT NICM and 4.4% (NNT 23) in DANISH. Under a full-GDMT scenario parameterized from pharmacological randomized controlled trials, projected baseline risk was ∼11%, yielding ARR 2.31% (NNT 43). All contemporary 'GDMT-era' absolute benefit estimates are scenario-based modelling outputs. No randomized trial has evaluated ICDs on top of full modern GDMT in NICM; therefore, these results represent illustrative ranges rather than empirical estimates.
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.