Defibrillator challenges for the new millennium: the marriage of device and patient-making and maintaining a good match.
Although it has become clear that implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are effective, important challenges remain for the physician. Due to the limitations of available risk stratification tools, patient selection for primary sudden death prevention remains controversial in many populations. Additionally, the proliferation of device choices has led to challenges in matching the appropriate device to the individual patient: device size is balanced against longevity; the advantages of dual chamber systems is weighed against their increased complexity; physician and patient preferences in device implant site are constrained by site-dependent effects on defibrillation effectiveness and lead failure rates; and special consideration must be given to the patient with a preexisting pacemaker. After ICD placement, determination of appropriate follow-up frequency and methodology to assess device function must be considered. This article will review patient selection, device implant site selection, device-device interactions, single versus dual chamber ICD selection, and follow-up.
Friedman
P A
PA
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA. pfriedman@mayo.edu
Glikson
M
M
Stanton
M S
MS
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D016757:Death, Sudden, Cardiac / Q000517:prevention & control*; D017147:Defibrillators, Implantable; D004554:Electric Countershock / Q000639:trends*; D004867:Equipment Design; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D018579:Patient Selection