Highlights the ongoing clinical challenge of preventing unnecessary shocks in patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for secondary prevention.
There is no doubt that the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has revolutionized the treatment of patients at risk for sudden cardiac death due to ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Over the last almost 4 decades, remarkable technological advances have made ICDs easier and safer to implant and widely accepted by patients and physicians. The delivery of ICD therapy for treatment of life-threatening arrhythmias is highly effective; however, the challenges of preventing unnecessary shocks remain to this day.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cakulev et al. (2020) conducted an editorial in First occurrence of ventricular tachycardia in primary prevention ICD patients (n=205). High-rate (VT ≥200 bpm) or delayed duration (>60-second delay) ICD programming vs. Conventional ICD programming (VT ≥170 bpm) was evaluated on Risk of inappropriate ICD therapies (71% reduction, p=0.02).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: