Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

An AVID dissent

R N Fogoros

    Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology : PACE
    |November 1, 1994
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    The AVID trial has significant flaws, including bias and ethical concerns, potentially harming patient care. Research should focus on patient selection for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) rather than broad studies.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Evidence-based medicine and the implantable defibrillator.

    Current cardiology reports·2000
    Same author

    Why the antiarrhythmics versus implantable defibrillator (AVID) trial sets the wrong precedent.

    The American journal of cardiology·1997
    Same author

    Impact of the implantable defibrillator on mortality: the axiom of overall implantable cardioverter-defibrillator survival.

    The American journal of cardiology·1996
    Same author

    Major clinical trials assessing the prophylactic use of amiodarone in patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias.

    Controlled clinical trials·1996
    Same author

    Classification of death in antiarrhythmia trials.

    Journal of the American College of Cardiology·1996
    Same author

    Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in 300 patients with coronary artery disease presenting exclusively with ventricular fibrillation.

    American heart journal·1994
    Same journal

    Sex Differences in the Burden of Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter and Associated Heart Failure Stratified by Age at Onset.

    Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE·2026
    Same journal

    Syncope due to Pacing Inhibition During VT Detection in a Conduction System Pacing ICD Programmed in AAI(R) Mode.

    Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE·2026
    Same journal

    When Less Is Too Little: Low Atrioventricular Synchrony by VDD Leadless Pacemaker in a Patient With Glenn Circulation.

    Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE·2026
    Same journal

    Temporal Changes in Left Ventricular Strain in Typical and Atypical Left Bundle Branch Block Patients: A Follow-up Study.

    Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE·2026
    Same journal

    Transcatheter Ethanol Ablation of Recurrent Right Atrial Appendage Diverticulum-Related Atrial Tachycardia in a Child.

    Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE·2026
    Same journal

    Impact of Phenotype on Recurrence of VT Post-Ablation in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy.

    Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE·2026
    See all related articles

    Area of Science:

    • Cardiology
    • Medical Device Research
    • Clinical Trials

    Background:

    • The Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) is a crucial tool for preventing sudden cardiac death.
    • Previous research has established the efficacy of ICDs in specific patient populations.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To critically evaluate the design and ethical implications of the AVID study.
    • To advocate for a shift in research focus towards precise patient selection for ICD implantation.

    Main Methods:

    • The study critiques the AVID trial's methodology, highlighting potential biases and ethical questions.
    • It emphasizes the need for research identifying patient subsets who benefit most from ICDs.

    Main Results:

    Related Experiment Videos

  • The AVID study is deemed flawed, potentially leading to misinterpretation and inappropriate use of ICDs.
  • Current research directions may not optimize ICD benefits due to a lack of granular patient selection.

    • Conclusions:

    • The AVID trial's approach is questioned for its potential to misguide ICD utilization.
    • Future research should prioritize identifying specific patient subgroups that benefit from ICDs to enhance survival and optimize device efficacy.