Key result
The incidence of ICD indications using NICE criteria was 98.4/10^6/year, which would increase to 453/10^6/year if MADIT II primary prevention criteria were included.
Why the study?
What is the true incidence of ICD indications among patients admitted to coronary care units compared to current implantation rates?
Population
336 patients admitted to coronary care units serving a district with a population of 471,000
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
1 month
Authors
Loading...
Observed ICD indication rates exceed guideline estimates and implantation; leaves open whether systematic post-MI screening improves outcomes.
Observational (n=336)
Yes
What is the true incidence of ICD indications among patients admitted to coronary care units compared to current implantation rates?
The incidence of ICD indications in clinical practice is substantially higher than anticipated by national guidelines and far exceeds actual implantation rates, suggesting a need for systematic screening of MI survivors.
Plummer et al. (2005) conducted an observational in Patients admitted to coronary care units (n=336). ICD indications based on NICE and MADIT II criteria was evaluated on Incidence of ICD indications. The incidence of ICD indications using NICE criteria was 98.4/10^6/year, which would increase to 453/10^6/year if MADIT II primary prevention criteria were included.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: