Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 20, 2026

A New Single Chamber Implantable Defibrillator with Atrial Sensing: A Practical Demonstration of Sensing and Ease of Implantation
Published on: February 28, 2012
Implantable defibrillator therapy
1Department of Cardiology, Amphia Hospital, Molengracht 21, 4818 CK Breda, The Netherlands. Malings@Amphia.nl
Insights
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are more effective than antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD). ICDs show consistent benefits in both secondary and primary prevention for heart attack survivors with reduced ejection fraction.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Electrophysiology
- Preventive Medicine
Background:
- Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a leading cause of mortality globally.
- Antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) have shown limited efficacy in preventing SCD, with beta-blockers being a notable exception.
- This led to the development of trials comparing implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) against drug therapy for SCD prevention.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the efficacy of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) compared to antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD).
- To assess ICD benefit in both secondary and primary prevention settings, particularly in patients with a history of myocardial infarction and left ventricular dysfunction.
Main Methods:
- Meta-analysis of three large randomized secondary prevention trials in patients resuscitated from ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) after myocardial infarction.
- Analysis of three large randomized primary prevention trials in patients with prior myocardial infarction and left ventricular dysfunction.
Main Results:
- Meta-analysis confirmed a consistent benefit of ICD therapy in secondary prevention post-myocardial infarction.
- ICD therapy also demonstrated significant benefit in primary prevention for patients with prior myocardial infarction and left ventricular dysfunction.
- The beneficial effect of ICDs was most pronounced in patients with the lowest left ventricular ejection fraction (26-30%).
Conclusions:
- Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are superior to antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) for preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in specific patient populations.
- ICD implantation is evidence-based for secondary prevention in patients with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy and low ejection fractions.
- Further research may be warranted to optimize ICD use in primary prevention for diverse cardiomyopathies.
Abstract:
Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is the most important cause of death in the industrialised world. Treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), however, proved disappointing in preventing SCD. From drugs with electrophysiological properties, only treatment with beta-blockers has been shown to improve clinical outcome. This lack of efficiency of AADs heralded a new era of secondary and primary prevention trials, comparing implantable cardioverterdefibrillator (ICD) with drug therapy. Three large randomised secondary prevention trials were conducted in patients with prior myocardial infarction who where resuscitated from VT or VF. Meta-analysis of these three studies show consistent ICD benefit. This ICD benefit is also observed in three large randomised primary prevention trials in patients with a prior myocardial infarction and left ventricular dysfunction. The beneficial effect of ICD therapy proves to be significantly more pronounced in patients with the lowest left ventricular ejection fraction (26-30%). In patients with nonischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy and low ejection fractions, however, currently the only evidence-based indication for ICD implantation is secondary prevention.
Related Concept Videos
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
ECG Interpretation of Arrhythmias II: Atrial, Junctional and Ventricular Arrhythmias
Dysrhythmias VI: Management of Dysrhythmias
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation III: AED Use

