Primary prevention with a defibrillator: are therapies always really optimized before implantation? | Zendy

Amélie Foucault | Zendy; Mathieu Amelot | Zendy; S. Gomes | Zendy; Laure ChampRigot | Zendy; Éric Saloux | Zendy; Arnaud Pellissier | Zendy; Fabien Labombarda | Zendy; P Scanu | Zendy; P Milliez | Zendy

AI Assistant Blog Pricing

Home ZAIA Blog

Open Access

Primary prevention with a defibrillator: are therapies always really optimized before implantation?

Author(s) -

Amélie Foucault,

Mathieu Amelot,

S. Gomes,

Laure ChampRigot,

Éric Saloux,

Arnaud Pellissier,

Fabien Labombarda,

P Scanu,

P Milliez

Publication year - 2012

Publication title -

ep europace

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 2.119

H-Index - 102

eISSN - 1532-2092

pISSN - 1099-5129

DOI - 10.1093/europace/eus187

Subject(s) - medicine , ejection fraction , cardiology , ventricle , implantable cardioverter defibrillator , ischemic cardiomyopathy , cardiomyopathy , sudden cardiac death , heart failure , revascularization , cardiac resynchronization therapy , primary prevention , myocardial infarction , disease

Left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 30-35% is widely accepted as a cut-off for primary prevention with an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) in patients with both ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy supposedly on optimal medical therapy. This study reports evolutions of LVEF and treatments of patients implanted in our institution with an ICD for primary prevention of sudden death, after 2 years of follow-up.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research