Why the study?
Is the growing use of CRT-D devices supported by clinical evidence, and is the risk-benefit profile favourable in mildly symptomatic patients?
Is the growing use of CRT-D devices supported by clinical evidence, and is the risk-benefit profile favourable in mildly symptomatic patients?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This review evaluates the clinical evidence and risk-benefit profile supporting the widespread use of combined CRT-D devices in chronic heart failure.
Device therapy for heart failure has a spectacular development during the last 10 years. Patients with chronic heart failure might benefit from electrical therapy with a view to: (i) resynchronize the failing and dyssynchronized heart and improve its mechanical performance or (ii) prevent the risk of sudden death by automatic defibrillation. These two therapies can be applied together with a combined device, the biventricular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (CRT-D). Today, the proportion of CRT-D devices among all CRT devices implanted around the world is more than 75% and more than 85% in the USA. This review article will try to answer some important questions for clinical practice: is the growing use of CRT-D devices supported by clinical evidence? Is the risk-benefit profile of CRT-D favourable in particular in mildly symptomatic patients?
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Daubert et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: