Key result
Implantable devices for ventricular tachyarrhythmias show encouraging effectiveness in treatment-resistant patients, but successful clinical use requires appropriate interfacing with patient pathophysiology.
Implantable devices for ventricular tachyarrhythmias are effective but must be tailored to patient pathophysiology and used as complementary therapies to existing medical and surgical approaches.
May inform device selection in refractory VT; leaves open prospective validation of tailored integration.
Technical advances now permit permanent implantation of devices such as antitachycardia pacemakers, cardioverters and cardioverter-defibrillators for control of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Despite the fact that these devices have been implanted only in patients resistant to conventional medical and surgical management, their effectiveness has been very encouraging. While improved designs are anticipated, preliminary studies have clearly indicated that one of the major challenges for successful clinical use will be appropriate interfacing of the device with the pathophysiology of the patient. Failure to recognize this fact will likely lead to unsuccessful clinical application. Moreover, these new instruments appear to be complementary to, rather than a replacement for, existing medical and surgical approaches to the patient with life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reid et al. (1984) conducted a review in Ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Implantable devices (antitachycardia pacemakers, cardioverters, cardioverter-defibrillators) was evaluated. Implantable devices for ventricular tachyarrhythmias show encouraging effectiveness in treatment-resistant patients, but successful clinical use requires appropriate interfacing with patient pathophysiology.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: