 |
|
Is What Is Good for the Gander Really Good for the Goose?
Rita F. Redberg, MD
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(16):1460-1461.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
The use of implantable cardioverter- defibrillators (ICDs) has grown rapidly in the last decade. Originally reserved for only the highest-risk patients such as survivors of sudden cardiac death (SCD), use of ICDs has expanded to include primary prevention following the publication of 2 randomized clinical trials establishing their efficacy.1-2 Since then, the great challenge in ICD use has been to identify those at greatest risk for SCD—that is, the population who would benefit the most from implantation. Cardiologists have used various criteria, such as the width of QRS and T-wave alternans, for risk stratification. Meanwhile, the use of ICDs has expanded even beyond those with heart failure to include younger patients with such conditions as arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia, long QT syndrome, and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.3
Approximately 30% of ICD recipients are women.4 However, data supporting the efficacy of ICDs for primary prevention in women is sparse.5 . . . [Full Text of this Article]
AUTHOR INFORMATION
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for the Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death in Women With Advanced Heart Failure: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Hamid Ghanbari, Ghassan Dalloul, Reema Hasan, Marcos Daccarett, Souheil Saba, Shukri David, and Christian Machado
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(16):1500-1506.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Do ICDs Work Better for Men Than for Women?
JWatch Women's Health 2009;2009:6-6.
FULL TEXT
|
