English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In 1980, Mirowski et al1 implanted the first implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in a young female with recurrent ventricular fibrillation and provided an innovative approach to aborted sudden cardiac death (SCD). Although the ICD was considered a treatment of last resort during that incipient stage, subsequent years have witnessed prolific expansion of indications for ICD implantation.2 Several large-scale clinical trials have demonstrated its efficacy for both primary and secondary prevention of SCD in patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy.3,4 ICD therapy in such high-risk patients has been shown to improve survival compared with conventional antiarrhythmic drug therapy alone.3,4 The number of ICD implantations has increased significantly in the last decade, with a concurrent decrease in the use of stand-alone antiarrhythmic drugs for ventricular indications.5–7 Current ICDs have sophisticated programming capabilities, atrial and bipolar leads, and are able to deliver antitachycardia pacing algorithms (ATP) in addition to defibrillating shocks.

Should Catheter Ablation be the Preferred Therapy for Reducing ICD Shocks?