Key result
Primary prevention ICDs reduce mortality, but expanding indications decreases overall efficacy and increases costs.
Why the study?
Does primary preventive ICD implantation benefit all patients with ventricular dysfunction?
Does primary preventive ICD implantation benefit all patients with ventricular dysfunction?
This review highlights the need to better define which patients with ventricular dysfunction truly benefit from primary prevention ICDs to optimize clinical effectiveness and healthcare costs.
Expanding primary-prevention ICD use may lower effectiveness; leaves open refined selection criteria in observational trends.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lubomír Křivan (2010) conducted a review in Ventricular dysfunction and risk of sudden cardiac death. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) vs. Conventional pharmacological therapy was evaluated. Primary prevention ICDs reduce mortality in selected patients with ventricular dysfunction, but expanding indications decrease overall efficacy and increase costs, necessitating improved risk stratification.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: