Appropriate Indications for the Implantable Defibrillator

  • R. N. Fogoros


After more than 15 years of clinical use, the appropriate indications for the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) remain in controversy. The reasons for this controversy have nothing whatever to do with the efficacy of the device itself, since the ICD has proven remarkably effective in doing what it was designed to do, namely, preventing sudden death from ventricular arrhythmias [1–5]. Instead, the controversy stems from three factors: a) the relative expense and inconvenience of the ICD as opposed to other available therapies; b) confusion as to whether the device prolongs overall survival as well as preventing sudden death; and c) failure to note that in some patients the ICD can be useful (and therefore effective) without appreciably improving the risk of sudden death or improving overall survival.


Sudden Death Ventricular Tachycardia Ventricular Arrhythmia Prior Myocardial Infarction Implantable Defibrillator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Mirowski M, Reid PR, Winkle RA et al (1983) Mortality in patients with implanted automatic defibrillators. Ann Intern Med 98: 585PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fogoros RN, Fiedler SB, Elson JJ (1987) The automatic implantable cardioverterdefibrillator in drug-refractory ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Ann Intern Med 107: 635PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Manolis AS, Tan-DeGuzman W, Lee MA et al (1989) Clinical experience with seventy-seven patients with the automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Am Heart J 118: 445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Winkle RZ, Mead RH, Ruder MA et al (1989) Long-term outcome with the automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. J Am Coll Cardiol 13: 133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Powell AC, Fuchs T, Finkelstein DM et al (1993) Influence of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators on the long-term prognosis of survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circulation 88: 1083PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fogoros RN (1996) Impact of the implantable defibrillator on mortality: The axiom of overall implantable cardioverter-defibrillator survival. Am J Cardiol 78 (suppl 5A): 57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bigger JT (1991) Future studies with the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. PACE 14: 833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lehman MH, Saksena S (1991) Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in cardiovascular practice: report of the Policy Conference of the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology. NASPE policy conference committee. PACE 14: 969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dreifus LS, Fisch C, Griffin JC et al (1991) Guidelines for implantation of cardiac pacemakers and antitachycardia devices: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures ( Committee on Pacemaker Implantation ). J Am Coll Cardiol 18: 1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moss AJ, Hall J, Cannom DS et al (1996) Improved survival with an implanted defibrillator in patients with coronary disease at high risk for ventricular arrhythmias. New Engl J Med 335: 1933PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. N. Fogoros
    • 1
  1. 1.Allegheny University of the Health SciencesPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations