Key result
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are more effective than antiarrhythmic drugs in prolonging life in selected high-risk patients who have survived life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias.
Why the study?
Does an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator reduce mortality in patients surviving life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias compared to antiarrhythmic drugs?
Does an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator reduce mortality in patients surviving life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias compared to antiarrhythmic drugs?
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators should be considered as first-line treatment for patients who have survived sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation.
Increasing numbers of patients are surviving a first episode of life threatening ventricular arrhythmia. In the absence of an acute myocardial infarction, patients who survive either ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia have a high risk of further episodes, which may be fatal.1 Until recently class I and class III antiarrhythmic drugs have been the standard treatment for these patients, with amiodarone2 and sotalol3 having been shown to be superior to class I drugs. Nevertheless, even with the best medical therapy, arrhythmia recurrence rates are still 40-50% at five years. There is now growing evidence to support the wider use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator devices as primary treatment in some patients with serious ventricular arrhythmias. These devices were developed in the 1970s, with the first human implant in 1980.4 Early devices had a single therapy option of defibrillation only; the generator was implanted abdominally; and thoracotomy was required for electrode placement. The units are now smaller (current devices are little bigger than a pacemaker) and can …
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Derek T. Connelly (1998) conducted an editorial in Life threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators vs. Antiarrhythmic drugs was evaluated on Total mortality. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are more effective than antiarrhythmic drugs in prolonging life in selected high-risk patients who have survived life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: