You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 296 No. 10, September 13, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Pacemakers/ Defibrillators
 •Cardiovascular System
 •Cardiovascular Intervention
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Antiarrhythmic Therapy for Prevention of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Shocks

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In their study on the effects of antiarrhythmic drugs for prevention of shocks from implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), Dr Connolly and colleagues1 classified these shocks as appropriate due to ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation or inappropriate due to supraventricular tachycardia. However, inappropriate shocks could be from other sources that cannot be suppressed by antiarrhythmic medications,2 and therefore should not be included in analysis. Such shocks occur as a result of oversensing of T waves in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, oversensing due to fracture of the leads, or electromagnetic interference from a variety of sources. The authors did not mention the number of such shocks and whether they were excluded from the analysis.

They also did not state whether patients with arrhythmic storm (refractory ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation) were included in the study. Patients who develop arrhythmic storm are typically sicker, require frequent rehospitalization, have lower left . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Abdul Wase, MD
abdul.wase@wright.edu
Section of Electrophysiology
Good Samaritan Hospital
Wright State University
Dayton, Ohio



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

Antiarrhythmic Therapy for Prevention of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Shocks
Michele Coceani
JAMA. 2006;296(10):1229-1230.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Antiarrhythmic Therapy for Prevention of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Shocks—Reply
Stefan H. Hohnloser, Robin S. Roberts, Eric Fain, and Stuart J. Connolly
JAMA. 2006;296(10):1230.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparison of {beta}-Blockers, Amiodarone Plus {beta}-Blockers, or Sotalol for Prevention of Shocks From Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: The OPTIC Study: A Randomized Trial
Stuart J. Connolly, Paul Dorian, Robin S. Roberts, Michael Gent, Steven Bailin, Eric S. Fain, Kevin Thorpe, Jean Champagne, Mario Talajic, Benoit Coutu, Gerian C. Gronefeld, Stefan H. Hohnloser, and for the Optimal Pharmacological Therapy in Cardioverter Defibrillator Patients (OPTIC) Investigators
JAMA. 2006;295(2):165-171.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2006 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.