Tenth Annual Scientific Congress

Ngai‐Shing Mok,Chi-Chung Choy,N. Y. Chan,Andrew K.S. Ho,C. D. Fu,Michael Kang-Yin,M. Lee,Vincent Chan,S.S. Lau,Kathy Lai-Fun,Chu-Pak Lee,Kathy Lai‐Fun Lee,Gaoxing Zhang,Xuedong Shen,Shou-Yue Pu,Haozhu Chen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55503/2790-6744.1188
2002-01-01
Abstract:Device therapy has become the preferred treatment for patients who have survived sudden cardiac death.Throughout the last decade, large-scale randomized clinical trials have provided consistent evidence on the clinical efficacy of device therapy.ICD is proven to be superior to anti-arrhythmic drugs in patients with structural heart diseases who suffer from haemodynamically significant ventricular arrhythmias.The role of ICD in primary prevention of sudden death in selected patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction is also widely established after the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implant Trial (MADIT) 1 and the Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT). 2 In MADIT, patients with previous myocardial infarction, depressed left ventricular function (ejection fraction <35%) and non-sustained ventricular tachycardia underwent electrophysiology study.Among them, 196 patients with inducible sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias but not suppressed by procainamide were randomized to receive an ICD or conventional therapy.The ICD group had a 54% reduction in mortality at 2 years, and the benefit was greatest in patients with the lowest left ventricular ejection fraction.The MUSTT trial was designed to compare electrophysiology-guided therapy and no active treatment in high-risk patients with
What problem does this paper attempt to address?