Who needs an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator? Controversies and opportunities after DANISH

No abstract available

Pearls and perils of an implantable defibrillator trial using a common control: implications for the design of future studies

Abstract Aims Implantable defibrillators are considered life-saving therapy in heart failure (CHF) patients. Surprisingly, the recent Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) reached an opposing conclusion from that of numerous other trials about their survival benefit in patients with advanced CHF. A critical analysis of common control trial design may explain this paradoxical finding, with important implications for future studies. Methods and Results Common control trials compare several intervention groups to a single rather than separate control groups. Though potentially requiring fewer patients than trials using separate controls, variation in the common control group will influence all comparisons and creates correlations between findings. During subgroup analyses, this dependency of outcomes may increase belief in the presence of a real subgroup effect when, in fact, it should increase skepticism. For example, a high (r = 0.92), statistically unlikely (p = 0.052) correlation between comparisons was observed across the subgroups reported in SCD-HeFT. Such concordance between amiodarone and a defibrillator across subgroups was unexpected, given how much the effects of these treatments significantly differed from one another in the main study. This suggests the study's subgroup findings (specifically the absence of benefit from defibrillators in advanced CHF) were not necessarily a consequence of treatment; more likely, they resulted from variation in what the treatments were compared against, the common control. Conclusion Common control trials can be more efficient than other designs, but induce dependence between treatment comparisons and require cautious interpretation.</p

Ventricular fibrillation treated by cryotherapy to the right ventricular outflow tract: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Arrhythmias originating from the right ventricular outflow tract are generally considered benign but cases of cardiac arrest have been described, usually associated with polymorphic ventricular tachycardia or extrasystoles with short coupling intervals. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the case of a 54-year-old Caucasian woman with symptomatic right ventricular outflow tract arrhythmias without structural heart disease who suffered a ventricular fibrillation arrest without prior malignant clinical features. Cryoablation was performed and an implantable cardioverter defibrillator was implanted. She has since been free of arrhythmia for 7 years and has asked that the implantable cardioverter defibrillator not be replaced when the battery becomes depleted. CONCLUSIONS: Although usually benign, right ventricular outflow tract tachycardia can be life-threatening. Even the most malignant cases can be cured by ablation