Skip Navigation


Europace Advance Access originally published online on June 7, 2006
Europace 2006 8(7):508-511; doi:10.1093/europace/eul052
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
8/7/508    most recent
eul052v1
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 arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kuck, K.-H.
Right arrow Articles by Nisam, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kuck, K.-H.
Right arrow Articles by Nisam, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The European Society of Cardiology 2006. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

ICD

ICD therapy: ‘the sickest benefit the most...’: what about the less sick?

Karl-Heinz Kuck1,* and Seah Nisam2

1 Ak St. Georg Kardiologische Abteilung, Lohmühlenstrasse 5, 20099 Hamburg, Germany; 2 Guidant Corporation, Park Lane Culliganlaan 2B, Diegem, Belgium

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have been proven to be highly efficacious in protecting very high-risk cardiac patients from sudden cardiac death and hence enhancing their overall survival. Furthermore, several post hoc sub-study analyses seem to indicate that ICD benefit is predominant in the patients with the highest risk, particularly with depressed left ventricular function. This, in turn, has led some clinicians to question the benefit of ICD therapy in relatively healthy, i.e. ‘less sick’, patients. As these interpretations come entirely from the sub-group analyses of the completed ICD prospective studies, it is important to examine more profoundly the study design, length of follow-up, and outcomes of these studies. Such analysis identifies three primary reasons why the conclusion that ‘less sick’ patients benefit less from ICD therapy may be erroneous: (i) the relatively short follow-up time of the studies (ended as soon as ICD therapy benefit became manifest); (ii) high ‘crossover rate’ from control to ICD therapy; and (iii) predominance of study endpoints (deaths) in the ‘sickest’ patients. The results of several studies, including the most recent and largest ICD study—SCD-Heft—and sub-group analyses of ‘healthier’ patient cohorts in several studies, support the benefit of ICDs in this group of patients, provided the follow-up time is sufficiently long.

Key Words: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator, Sudden death, Left ventricular dysfunction, Heart failure

* Corresponding author. Tel: +49 40 2890 2305; fax: +49 40 2890 4444. E-mail address: karl_heinz.kuck{at}ak-stgeorg.lbk-hh.de


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.