Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
Rigshospitalet - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Editorial Commentary: When should the patient with an inherited cardiac disease have an ICD?

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{2eac0e2beb7d46daa323ed7d9cbf06c5,
title = "Editorial Commentary: When should the patient with an inherited cardiac disease have an ICD?",
abstract = "The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is often considered a routine intervention for an inherited heart rhythm disorder (IHRD) despite there being little to no randomized data for non-ischemic indications. Furthermore, existing IHRD studies often do not report adverse ICD outcomes, and observational data increasingly show that complications are under-recognized. Only recently have tools emerged to address the rational use of ICDs for specific forms of IHRD, although the acceptable risk of device complications remains unestablished. Here, we summarize the evidence of ICD benefit and harm in IHRD, highlight current knowledge gaps, and propose alternative and adjunctive options to the transvenous ICD.",
keywords = "Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, Brugada syndrome, Implantable cardioverter defibrillator, Inherited arrhythmia, Long qt syndrome",
author = "Winkel, {Bo Gregers} and Jacob Tfelt-Hansen",
note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",
year = "2020",
month = oct,
doi = "10.1016/j.tcm.2019.11.004",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "422--423",
journal = "Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine",
issn = "1050-1738",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc",
number = "7",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Editorial Commentary

T2 - When should the patient with an inherited cardiac disease have an ICD?

AU - Winkel, Bo Gregers

AU - Tfelt-Hansen, Jacob

N1 - Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2020/10

Y1 - 2020/10

N2 - The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is often considered a routine intervention for an inherited heart rhythm disorder (IHRD) despite there being little to no randomized data for non-ischemic indications. Furthermore, existing IHRD studies often do not report adverse ICD outcomes, and observational data increasingly show that complications are under-recognized. Only recently have tools emerged to address the rational use of ICDs for specific forms of IHRD, although the acceptable risk of device complications remains unestablished. Here, we summarize the evidence of ICD benefit and harm in IHRD, highlight current knowledge gaps, and propose alternative and adjunctive options to the transvenous ICD.

AB - The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is often considered a routine intervention for an inherited heart rhythm disorder (IHRD) despite there being little to no randomized data for non-ischemic indications. Furthermore, existing IHRD studies often do not report adverse ICD outcomes, and observational data increasingly show that complications are under-recognized. Only recently have tools emerged to address the rational use of ICDs for specific forms of IHRD, although the acceptable risk of device complications remains unestablished. Here, we summarize the evidence of ICD benefit and harm in IHRD, highlight current knowledge gaps, and propose alternative and adjunctive options to the transvenous ICD.

KW - Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy

KW - Brugada syndrome

KW - Implantable cardioverter defibrillator

KW - Inherited arrhythmia

KW - Long qt syndrome

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076244042&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.tcm.2019.11.004

DO - 10.1016/j.tcm.2019.11.004

M3 - Editorial

C2 - 31812250

VL - 30

SP - 422

EP - 423

JO - Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine

JF - Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine

SN - 1050-1738

IS - 7

ER -

ID: 59483929