TY - JOUR
T1 - Editorial Commentary
T2 - When should the patient with an inherited cardiac disease have an ICD?
AU - Winkel, Bo Gregers
AU - Tfelt-Hansen, Jacob
N1 - Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/10
Y1 - 2020/10
N2 - The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is often considered a routine intervention for an inherited heart rhythm disorder (IHRD) despite there being little to no randomized data for non-ischemic indications. Furthermore, existing IHRD studies often do not report adverse ICD outcomes, and observational data increasingly show that complications are under-recognized. Only recently have tools emerged to address the rational use of ICDs for specific forms of IHRD, although the acceptable risk of device complications remains unestablished. Here, we summarize the evidence of ICD benefit and harm in IHRD, highlight current knowledge gaps, and propose alternative and adjunctive options to the transvenous ICD.
AB - The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is often considered a routine intervention for an inherited heart rhythm disorder (IHRD) despite there being little to no randomized data for non-ischemic indications. Furthermore, existing IHRD studies often do not report adverse ICD outcomes, and observational data increasingly show that complications are under-recognized. Only recently have tools emerged to address the rational use of ICDs for specific forms of IHRD, although the acceptable risk of device complications remains unestablished. Here, we summarize the evidence of ICD benefit and harm in IHRD, highlight current knowledge gaps, and propose alternative and adjunctive options to the transvenous ICD.
U2 - 10.1016/j.tcm.2019.11.004
DO - 10.1016/j.tcm.2019.11.004
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 31812250
SN - 1050-1738
JO - Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine
JF - Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine
ER -