Key result
This review highlights ongoing clinical challenges with implantable cardioverter defibrillators, including patient selection, device and implant site selection, and appropriate follow-up.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This review highlights ongoing clinical challenges in ICD therapy, including patient selection, device type, implant site, and follow-up strategies.
Although it has become clear that implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are effective, important challenges remain for the physician. Due to the limitations of available risk stratification tools, patient selection for primary sudden death prevention remains controversial in many populations. Additionally, the proliferation of device choices has led to challenges in matching the appropriate device to the individual patient: device size is balanced against longevity; the advantages of dual chamber systems is weighed against their increased complexity; physician and patient preferences in device implant site are constrained by site-dependent effects on defibrillation effectiveness and lead failure rates; and special consideration must be given to the patient with a preexisting pacemaker. After ICD placement, determination of appropriate follow-up frequency and methodology to assess device function must be considered. This article will review patient selection, device implant site selection, device-device interactions, single versus dual chamber ICD selection, and follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Friedman et al. (2000) conducted a review in Sudden death prevention / ICD placement. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) was evaluated. This review highlights ongoing clinical challenges with implantable cardioverter defibrillators, including patient selection, device and implant site selection, and appropriate follow-up.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: