Abstract
The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 1985 and is widely used in practice. Until very recently, however, the efficacy of the ICD has depended on large published series of retrospective studies analyzing ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation patients. The recently published antiarrhythmics versus implantable defibrillator (AVID) trial is the first prospective randomized trial to show clearly that the ICD is more effective than drug therapy (amiodarone or sotalol) in patients who have survived an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or have syncopal or hemodynamically significant ventricular tachycardia. The survival advantages probably holds true only for patients with an ejection fraction under 35% who have either coronary disease or other forms of cardiomyopathy. The survival advantage in this trial – which was halted prematurely because of the results noted – was short-lived (2.6 months) and expensive. The results of this trial will clearly define the role of the ICD in everyday clinical practice and will be of invaluable benefit to patients, physicians, and insurers alike. The results of the AVID trial as well as other post-event and pre-event trials are summarized in the manuscript. A number of substudies have already resulted from the AVID study and are also presented.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.