© 2004 by BMJ Publishing Group & British Cardiac Society
EDITORIAL
The MADIT II and COMPANION studies: will they affect uptake of device treatment?
Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr John M Morgan
Wessex Cardiothoracic Centre, Southampton University Hospitals, Tremona Road, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK; jmm@cardiology.co.uk
Primary prophylaxis of sudden cardiac death by implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) treatment will greatly increase ICD implant numbers. This will have major cost and infrastructure consequences. Those studies that have demonstrated the clinical need have been industry driven. Whether their conclusions should now expand ICD indications is debated, but it would be perverse to suggest that hesitancy in ICD treatment expansion relates to reservation about the clinical science rather than to concern about cost and resource implications
Keywords: sudden cardiac death; implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
Abbreviations: CARE-HF, cardiac resynchronisation in heart failure; COMPANION, comparison of medical therapy, pacing and defibrillation in heart failure; CRT, cardiac resynchronisation therapy; ICD, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; MADIT, multi-center autonomic defibrillator implantation trial; MUSTT, multicenter unsustained tachycardia trial
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
It is accepted that sudden cardiac death, often caused by ventricular arrhythmia, is a major cause of western population mortality.1–2 Immediate defibrillation is the only remedy for arrhythmic sudden death caused by haemodynamically compromising ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation,3 although pace termination of ventricular tachycardia may prevent the arrhythmic cascade to ventricular fibrillation.4–6 Immediate defibrillation shock treatment delivery by the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is highly efficacious in preventing sudden cardiac death.7,8 Though the ICD has been in clinical use for 23 years,9 indications for its use have broadened in the 1990s as clinical acceptability of ICD treatment has increased (with the advent of small devices capable of pectoral implantation, using per venous defibrillation leads).10,11
Implantation guidelines based on outcomes of well designed studies have become widely accepted.12,13 These have mainly defined implantation practice in patients who have already suffered ventricular arrhythmia from which they have been rescued—that is, "secondary prevention"
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
- Full Text
- Full Text (PDF)
- Submit a response
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me when eLetters are posted
- Alert me if a correction is posted
- Citation Map
Services
- Email this link to a friend
- Similar articles in this journal
- Similar articles in PubMed
- Add article to my folders
- Download to citation manager
- Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Topic Collections
Bookmark with
Register for free content
The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.
Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.
