This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (6)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Pacemakers/ Defibrillators  • Cardiovascular Intervention  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Anil K. Gehi, MD; Davendra Mehta, MD, PhD; J. Anthony Gomes, MD

JAMA. 2006;296:2839-2847.

Context  There has been a tremendous increase in the use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) after several large clinical trials demonstrated their ability to effectively reduce mortality in selected populations of patients with cardiac disease. Thus, the nonelectrophysiologist will often encounter patients who have received an ICD shock.

Objective  To assess options for the evaluation and management of patients who have received an ICD shock.

Evidence Acquisition  Literature search using the PubMed and MEDLINE databases to identify articles published from January 1990 to September 2006, using the Medical Subject Headings defibrillators, implantable; defibrillators, implantable/adverse effects; anti-arrhythmic agents; electric countershock; quality of life; tachycardia therapy; algorithm; ventricular tachycardia/diagnosis; and supraventricular tachycardia/diagnosis. Case reports were excluded and articles were limited to those published in English. Scientific statements and guidelines from the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society were also reviewed, as were the reference lists of retrieved articles, to identify any additional articles for inclusion.

Evidence Synthesis  There are multiple causes of both appropriate and inappropriate ICD shocks. Irrespective of appropriateness, receiving ICD shocks substantially impairs a patient's quality of life. A variety of techniques are available using ICD programming to reliably limit the occurrence of appropriate or inappropriate ICD shocks. Antiarrhythmic medications can also effectively reduce the occurrence of shocks.

Conclusions  Through the use of effective ICD programming and antiarrhythmic medications, the occurrence of ICD shocks can be reduced while maintaining the lifesaving ability of the ICD. A basic understanding of the range of available options is fundamental for evaluation and management of the patient who has received an ICD shock.

Author Affiliations: Division of Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Ga (Dr Gehi); and The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY (Drs Mehta and Gomes).

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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Appropriate Evaluation and Treatment of Heart Failure Patients After Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Discharge Time to Go Beyond the Initial Shock.
Mishkin et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:1993-2000.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Strategic Programming of Detection and Therapy Parameters in Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Reduces Shocks in Primary Prevention Patients: Results From the PREPARE (Primary Prevention Parameters Evaluation) Study
Wilkoff et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:541-550.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A 59-Year-Old Man Considering Implantation of a Cardiac Defibrillator
Zimetbaum
JAMA 2007;297:1909-1916.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Management of ICD Shocks
JWatch Emergency Med. 2007;2007:4-4.
FULL TEXT