Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

About: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 8166 publications have been published within this topic receiving 203754 citations. The topic is also known as: ICD dual chamber devices with lead & Defibrillators, Implantable.

Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction.

Abstract: Background Patients with reduced left ventricular function after myocardial infarction are at risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. This randomized trial was designed to evaluate the effect of an implantable defibrillator on survival in such patients. Methods Over the course of four years, we enrolled 1232 patients with a prior myocardial infarction and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.30 or less. Patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to receive an implantable defibrillator (742 patients) or conventional medical therapy (490 patients). Invasive electrophysiological testing for risk stratification was not required. Death from any cause was the end point. Results The clinical characteristics at base line and the prevalence of medication use at the time of the last follow-up visit were similar in the two treatment groups. During an average follow-up of 20 months, the mortality rates were 19.8 percent in the conventional-therapy group and 14.2 percent in the defibrillator group....

Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive Heart failure

Abstract: background Sudden death from cardiac causes remains a leading cause of death among patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). Treatment with amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) has been proposed to improve the prognosis in such patients. methods We randomly assigned 2521 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III CHF and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35 percent or less to conventional therapy for CHF plus placebo (847 patients), conventional therapy plus amiodarone (845 patients), or conventional therapy plus a conservatively programmed, shockonly, single-lead ICD (829 patients). Placebo and amiodarone were administered in a double-blind fashion. The primary end point was death from any cause. results The median LVEF in patients was 25 percent; 70 percent were in NYHA class II, and 30 percent were in class III CHF. The cause of CHF was ischemic in 52 percent and nonischemic in 48 percent. The median follow-up was 45.5 months. There were 244 deaths (29 percent) in the placebo group, 240 (28 percent) in the amiodarone group, and 182 (22 percent) in the ICD group. As compared with placebo, amiodarone was associated with a similar risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.06; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.30; P=0.53) and ICD therapy was associated with a decreased risk of death of 23 percent (0.77; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.62 to 0.96; P=0.007) and an absolute decrease in mortality of 7.2 percentage points after five years in the overall population. Results did not vary according to either ischemic or nonischemic causes of CHF, but they did vary according to the NYHA class. conclusions In patients with NYHA class II or III CHF and LVEF of 35 percent or less, amiodarone has no favorable effect on survival, whereas single-lead, shock-only ICD therapy reduces overall mortality by 23 percent.

Improved survival with an implanted defibrillator in patients with coronary disease at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia

Abstract: Background Unsustained ventricular tachycardia in patients with previous myocardial infarction and left ventricular dysfunction is associated with a two-year mortality rate of about 30 percent. We studied whether prophylactic therapy with an implanted cardioverter–defibrillator, as compared with conventional medical therapy, would improve survival in this high-risk group of patients. Methods Over the course of five years, 196 patients in New York Heart Association functional class I, II, or III with prior myocardial infarction; a left ventricular ejection fraction <0.35; a documented episode of asymptomatic unsustained ventricular tachycardia; and inducible, nonsuppressible ventricular tachyarrhythmia on electrophysiologic study were randomly assigned to receive an implanted defibrillator (n = 95) or conventional medical therapy (n = 101). We used a two-sided sequential design with death from any cause as the end point. Results The base-line characteristics of the two treatment groups were similar. During...

A comparison of antiarrhythmic-drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias

Abstract: BACKGROUND Patients who survive life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias are at risk for recurrent arrhythmias. They can be treated with either an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or antiarrhythmic drugs, but the relative efficacy of these two treatment strategies is unknown. METHODS To address this issue, we conducted a randomized comparison of these two treatment strategies in patients who had been resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular fibrillation or who had undergone cardioversion from sustained ventricular tachycardia. Patients with ventricular tachycardia also had either syncope or other serious cardiac symptoms, along with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.40 or less. One group of patients was treated with implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator; the other received class III antiarrhythmic drugs, primarily amiodarone at empirically determined doses. Fifty-six clinical centers screened all patients who presented with ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation during a period of nearly four years. Of 1016 patients (45 percent of whom had ventricular fibrillation, and 55 percent ventricular tachycardia), 507 were randomly assigned to treatment with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and 509 to antiarrhythmic-drug therapy. The primary end point was overall mortality. RESULTS Follow-up was complete for 1013 patients (99.7 percent). Overall survival was greater with the implantable defibrillator, with unadjusted estimates of 89.3 percent, as compared with 82.3 percent in the antiarrhythmic-drug group at one year, 81.6 percent versus 74.7 percent at two years, and 75.4 percent versus 64.1 percent at three years (P<0.02). The corresponding reductions in mortality (with 95 percent confidence limits) with the implantable defibrillator were 39+/-20 percent, 27+/-21 percent, and 31+/-21 percent CONCLUSIONS Among survivors of ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia causing severe symptoms, the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is superior to antiarrhythmic drugs for increasing overall survival.

2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: The Task Force for the Management of Patients with Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by: Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC)

Abstract: ACC : American College of Cardiology ACE : angiotensin-converting enzyme ACS : acute coronary syndrome AF : atrial fibrillation AGNES : Arrhythmia Genetics in the Netherlands AHA : American Heart Association AMIOVIRT : AMIOdarone Versus Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: