Skip Navigation

Europace 2004 6(3):179-183; doi:10.1016/j.eupc.2004.01.001
© 2004 by European Society of Cardiology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sterk, B.
Right arrow Articles by Koster, R.W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sterk, B.
Right arrow Articles by Koster, R.W.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

ICD-implantation guidelines versus clinical practice: a prospective study of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors*

B. Sterk, A.P. van Alem, R. Tukkie, T.A. Simmers and R.W. Koster*

Department of Cardiology, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands

AIMS: The aim of this study was prospectively to compare clinical practice of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) use with current guidelines in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survivors.

METHODS AND RESULTS: From January 2000 till March 2002, 70 consecutive patients (pts) discharged from 15 hospitals after OHCA, with ventricular fibrillation (VF) as initial rhythm were included. Documentation of diagnosis, left ventricular function, ischaemia, electrophysiological studies (EPS), and decisions regarding ICD implantation were obtained from medical records. An expert committee compared these data with current guidelines. According to these guidelines 18 pts (26%) had an ICD indication and received an ICD while 37 pts (53%) had no indication and did not receive an ICD. In 13 pts without acute myocardial infarction insufficient diagnostic procedures were performed to permit a decision on ICD indication, hence no ICD was implanted. Two pts had an ICD indication but did not receive an ICD. During the follow-up with duration of 25 months (range 12–38 months), two sudden deaths occurred in the group of pts without an ICD. Of the pts with an ICD, 4 pts (22%) were reported to have received one or more shocks for VT/VF.

CONCLUSION: In at least 21% of OHCA survivors, insufficient diagnostic procedures concerning the indication for ICD implantation were performed or no ICD was implanted when indicated, despite clear guidelines. In particular, there was no proof of ischaemia prior to revascularization and no confirmation of the absence of ischaemia and EPS thereafter. Clinicians should be guided better in evaluating pts after OHCA concerning the indication for ICD implantation, especially when a transient of reversible condition was present or when treatment was sufficiently established safely to refrain from ICD implantation.

Key Words: implantable cardioverter defibrillator, guidelines, tachyarrhythmias, defibrillation, resuscitation


*Corresponding author. R.W. Koster, Academic Medical Center, Department of Cardiology, room F3-239, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31-20-566-2608; fax: +31-20-566-6809. E-mail address: r.w.koster{at}amc.uva.nl (R.W. Koster).


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.