Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 25, 2026

Implantation of Electroencephalogram and Electrocardiogram Telemetry Devices in Neonatal Rabbit Kits
Published on: February 28, 2025
Sudden cardiac death and implantable cardioverter defibrillators: two modern epidemics?
Demosthenes G Katritsis1, Mark E Josephson
1Athens Euroclinic, 9 Athanassiadou Street, Athens 11521, Greece. dkatritsis@euroclinic.gr
Insights
Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) improve survival in some patients with ventricular arrhythmias, but benefits may be transient with modern therapy. ICDs offer survival benefits primarily in high-risk ischemic cardiomyopathy patients, not solely based on ejection fraction.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Electrophysiology
- Medical Device Efficacy
Background:
- Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are used to prevent sudden cardiac death.
- Evidence regarding the survival benefit and cost-effectiveness of ICDs requires critical analysis.
- Modern medical therapies, including beta-blockers, may influence ICD efficacy.
Purpose of the Study:
- To critically analyze the existing evidence on the survival benefits of ICDs.
- To evaluate the role of ICDs in different patient populations and clinical settings.
- To assess the cost-effectiveness and appropriate use of ICDs based on current evidence.
Main Methods:
- Critical analysis of existing scientific evidence and clinical trial data.
- Review of studies examining ICDs in patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias and cardiac arrest.
- Evaluation of ICD efficacy in high-risk patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and specific ejection fraction thresholds.
Main Results:
- ICDs confer a survival benefit in patients with documented sustained ventricular arrhythmias or cardiac arrest, though this may be transient with optimal medical therapy.
- In patients without sustained ventricular arrhythmias, ICDs provide significant survival benefit only in high-risk ischemic cardiomyopathy patients with LVEF ≤ 35% from remote myocardial infarction.
- Left ventricular ejection fraction alone is insufficient for predicting sudden cardiac death risk; benefits in the elderly and women are not established, and cost-effectiveness is limited to specific high-risk groups.
Conclusions:
- ICD survival benefits are established in specific high-risk groups but may be overestimated in broader populations.
- Current guidelines may lead to overuse of ICDs, necessitating a more refined approach to patient selection.
- Further research is needed to clarify ICD benefits in specific demographics like women and the elderly, and to optimize cost-effectiveness.
Abstract:
Critical analysis of the existing evidence indicates that: In patients with documented sustained ventricular arrhythmias and/or cardiac arrest, implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) confer a survival benefit. In several clinical settings this is rather transient, and might be lost when modern medical therapy including β-blockers is implemented. In patients without sustained ventricular arrhythmias or cardiac arrest, ICDs confer a significant survival benefit only in high-risk patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤ 35% due to a remote myocardial infarction. Left ventricular ejection fraction alone is rather unlikely to be sufficient for effective sudden cardiac death risk prediction, due to low sensitivity and specificity. The benefits of ICDs in the elderly as well as in women are not established. With current prices, ICDs are probably cost-effective only when used in high-risk patients without associated comorbidities that limit the life expectancy to <10 years. Recommendations by current guidelines may result in unnecessary overuse of ICD.
Related Concept Videos
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Introduction Cardiac Emergencies
Dysrhythmias VI: Management of Dysrhythmias
Coronary Artery Disease III: Clinical Manifestations
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation III: AED Use
