Key result
Implantable defibrillators are effective and cost-effective for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death, but their use in primary prevention remains limited by imperfect risk stratification and high costs.
This article reviews patient selection and cost-effectiveness considerations for implantable defibrillators in preventing sudden cardiac death.
Supports selective ICD use in secondary SCD prevention; leaves open primary prevention optimization pending better stratification.
Ventricular arrhythmias account for 80% of sudden cardiac deaths. The implantable defibrillator (ICD) is an effective means of preventing these deaths. This article discusses which patients may benefit from ICD implantation and addresses the cost-effectiveness of their use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fitchet et al. (1999) conducted a review in Sudden cardiac death and life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Implantable defibrillator (ICD) vs. Antiarrhythmic drugs or conventional therapy was evaluated. Implantable defibrillators are effective and cost-effective for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death, but their use in primary prevention remains limited by imperfect risk stratification and high costs.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: