MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411711207 · doi:10.1016/j.cjco.2025.06.016

Contemporary Use of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in the Era of 4-Pillar Heart Failure Therapy---an International Survey

2025· article· en· W4411711207 on OpenAlexaff
Bert Vandenberk, Roopinder K. Sandhu, Justin A. Ezekowitz, Derek S. Chew

Bibliographic record

VenueCJC Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaCanadian VIGOUR CentreUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPillarImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorHeart failureMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineMedical emergencyIntensive care medicineForensic engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Optimized 4-pillar guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has significantly altered clinical practice, with a coinciding decrease in sudden cardiac death. The continued role for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in primary prevention of sudden death has recently been debated in the context of residual arrhythmic risk. This survey explored contemporary attitudes toward primary prevention ICD use in ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy. Methods: An international, REDCap-based survey targeting clinicians involved in HFrEF management assessed the impact of GDMT on ICD decision-making, clinical thresholds used for implantation, and willingness to participate in randomized controlled trials. Results: = 0.003). Clinical thresholds based on left ventricular ejection fraction and New York Heart Association class were common, whereas age, renal function, and late gadolinium enhancement cut-offs were used less frequently. Willingness to randomize patients into ICD vs no-ICD trials was moderate for ischemic cardiomyopathy (38.8% for all patients, 31.8% for select patients). In nonischemic cardiomyopathy, willingness was higher, with 51.2% willing to randomize all patients and only 9.3% declining. Free-text responses emphasized individualized decision-making and the growing role of imaging and genetics. Conclusions: In the era of optimized GDMT, practice patterns regarding primary prevention ICD implantation are increasingly heterogeneous. These findings underscore the need for nuanced shared decision-making and well-designed randomized controlled studies to guide future practice.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCJC OpenSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207