Skip Navigation

European Heart Journal 2004 25(8):623-625; doi:10.1016/j.ehj.2004.02.029
Copyright © 2004 by the European Society of Cardiology.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Related articles in EHJ
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 Weber, H
Right arrow Articles by Kornfeld, G
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Weber, H
Right arrow Articles by Kornfeld, G
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Editorial

Treating electrical instability in sudden cardiac death survivors – are we looking at the right side of the coin?

H Weber*, K Allikmets and G Kornfeld

Danube Hospital, 1st Medical Department, Langobardenstrasse 122, 1220 Vienna, Austria

* Correspondence to: Tel.: +43-1-28802-3101; fax: +43-1-60-191-2509
E-mail address: heinrich.weber@wienkav.at

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

This editorial refers to "Response of programmed electrical stimulation and clinical outcome in cardiac arrest survivors receiving randomized assignment to implantable defibrillator or antiarrhythmic drug therapy"1 by Cappato et al. on page 642.

The chances of surviving sudden cardiac death (SCD) are low (5–60%)1 and the recurrence rate is high (40% in the following 2 years). Secondary prevention in SCD-survivors is mandatory. SCD remains the "challenge to contemporary cardiology" as B. Lown wrote in the late 1970s.

In SCD survivors the tool of choice is the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), a crude but effective device that increases survival 90%.1 It prolongs survival, but also reduces the quality of life. However, in view of the 40% recurrence rate of lethal, arrhythmic events, the ICD is implanted in 60/100 patients unnecessarily!

Despite the efficacy . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) as a risk-stratification tool in SCD survivors

PVS as a tool for evaluating antiarrhythmic therapy in SCD survivors

The nature of sudden cardiac death – are we looking at the right side?


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

Related articles in EHJ:

Response to programmed ventricular stimulation and clinical outcome in cardiac arrest survivors receiving randomised assignment to implantable cardioverter defibrillator or antiarrhythmic drug therapy
Riccardo Cappato, Sigrid Boczor, Karl-Heinz Kuck, and on behalf of the CASH Investigators
EHJ 2004 25: 642-649. [Abstract] [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ChestHome page
E. G. Manios, E. M. Kallergis, E. M. Kanoupakis, H. E. Mavrakis, D. C. Kambouraki, D. A. Arfanakis, and P. E. Vardas
Amino-Terminal Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide Predicts Ventricular Arrhythmogenesis in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators
Chest, October 1, 2005; 128(4): 2604 - 2610.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]