Why the study?
Key ICD trials were conducted two decades ago with recent trials providing conflicting results, leaving questions on how to identify patients at high risk of SCD who would benefit most in a contemporary setting.
This review summarizes current knowledge on patient selection, device selection, and programming for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in the prevention of sudden cardiac death.
May guide ICD decisions in SCD prevention; leaves open need for prospective validation of programming strategies.
Multiple randomized multicentre clinical trials have established the role of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) as the mainstay in the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (SCD) prevention. These trials have focused mainly on heart failure patients with advanced left ventricular dysfunction and were mostly conducted two decades ago, whereas a more recent trial has provided conflicting results. Therefore, much remains to be determined on how best to balance the identification of patients at high risk of SCD together with who would benefit most from ICD implantation in a contemporary setting. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators have also evolved from the simple, defibrillation-only devices implanted surgically to more advanced technologies of multi-chamber devices, with physiologic bradycardic pacing, including cardiac resynchronization therapy, atrial and ventricular therapeutic pacing algorithms, and subcutaneous ICDs. These multiple options necessitate individualized approach to device selection and programming. This review will focus on the current knowledge on selection of patients for ICD treatment, device selection and programming, and future directions of implantable device therapy for SCD prevention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Goldenberg et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: