Key result
Optimal ICD programming may improve survival and reduce inappropriate shocks.
Why the study?
It is uncertain whether ICD programming is optimally managed to improve survival and reduce inappropriate shocks.
Should not yet alter ICD programming; leaves open whether optimized settings improve survival or reduce shocks.
It can be simply stated that there are only two goals of most therapies: to help patients feel better or to help them live longer (or both). Implantable cardioverter–defibrillators (ICDs) have the potential to achieve both goals, but what distinguishes ICD therapy from medical therapies? Specifically, physicians can determine how an ICD is programmed to deliver therapy, but do we manage programming optimally to improve survival and reduce inappropriate shocks? This is an important question, because cardiovascular implantable electronic device therapy as a class and ICD therapy in particular appear to have inherent characteristics that are distinct in important ways . . .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bruce Larry Wilkoff (2012) conducted an editorial in Patients with Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). ICD programming was evaluated. Optimal programming of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators is discussed as a potential strategy to improve survival and reduce inappropriate shocks.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: