Literature DB >> 10980833

Evidence-based medicine and the implantable defibrillator.

R N Fogoros1.   

Abstract

Evidence from recent randomized clinical trials now strongly supports the use of the implantable defibrillator, as treatment of first choice, in patients who have experienced symptomatic, sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Little or no controversy remains on this question, either among physicians or third-party players. The evidence-based use of the defibrillator as primary preventative therapy (that is, for patients who have an increased risk for lethal arrhythmias, but who have not yet experienced them) is far more limited. Two randomized trials have now demonstrated a survival benefit with the defibrillator in patients who have ischemic heart disease; reduced left ventricular ejection fraction; documented nonsustained ventricular tachycardia; and inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia during electrophysiologic testing that is not suppressed by at least one drug trial. Based on the strength of this recently available information, the screening of appropriate patients, while admittedly inconvenient, ought to be strongly considered. The broader use of the implantable defibrillator in the primary prophylaxis of arrhythmic sudden death will have to await the results of future trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10980833     DOI: 10.1007/s11886-999-0072-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep        ISSN: 1523-3782            Impact factor:   2.931


  15 in total

1.  AVID necessity.

Authors:  A E Epstein
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 1.976

Review 2.  Ongoing risk stratification trials: the primary prevention of sudden death.

Authors:  A E Buxton
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1996-06

3.  The AVID trial: evidence based or randomized control trials--is the AVID study too late? Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators.

Authors:  M E Josephson; S Nisam
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1997-07-15       Impact factor: 2.778

4.  Are implantable cardioverter-defibrillators or drugs more effective in prolonging life? The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial Executive Committee.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1997-03-01       Impact factor: 2.778

5.  Background, outcome, and clinical implications of the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT)

Authors:  A J Moss
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1997-09-11       Impact factor: 2.778

6.  Improved survival with an implanted defibrillator in patients with coronary disease at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia. Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial Investigators.

Authors:  A J Moss; W J Hall; D S Cannom; J P Daubert; S L Higgins; H Klein; J H Levine; S Saksena; A L Waldo; D Wilber; M W Brown; M Heo
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1996-12-26       Impact factor: 91.245

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

Authors: 
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1997-11-27       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Implantable cardioverter defibrillator compared with antiarrhythmic drug treatment in cardiac arrest survivors (the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg).

Authors:  J Siebels; K H Kuck
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 4.749

9.  Randomized study of implantable defibrillator as first-choice therapy versus conventional strategy in postinfarct sudden death survivors.

Authors:  E F Wever; R N Hauer; F L van Capelle; J G Tijssen; H J Crijns; A Algra; A C Wiesfeld; P F Bakker; E O Robles de Medina
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1995-04-15       Impact factor: 29.690

10.  An AVID dissent.

Authors:  R N Fogoros
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 1.976

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.