A 21-year-old male with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy died suddenly during physical exertion despite having a Guidant Ventak Prizm 2 DR implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.
This editorial highlights a fatal case of sudden cardiac death in a patient with a Guidant ICD, raising concerns about device reliability and safety.
On October 4, 2001, Joshua Oukrop, a Minnesota teenager with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and a high risk of sudden death from ventricular fibrillation, received an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD). The device was a Ventak Prizm 2 DR Model 1861 manufactured by Guidant (Indianapolis). After it was implanted, Oukrop's physicians at the Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation checked it every three months (most recently on January 31, 2005) and found no problems.1 On March 14, 2005, Oukrop, then a 21-year-old college student, collapsed and died in a remote area of southeastern Utah during a spring-break bicycling trip with his girlfriend.1,2 An autopsy revealed . . .
Robert Steinbrook (Wed,) conducted a editorial in Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (n=1). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (Ventak Prizm 2 DR Model 1861) was evaluated. A 21-year-old male with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy died suddenly during physical exertion despite having a Guidant Ventak Prizm 2 DR implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: