ライフサイエンスコーパス: defibrillator

1 of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

2 on with (n = 4,037) or without (n = 1,270) a defibrillator.

3 ify placement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

4 entive therapy, the implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

5 as a single chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

6 s ICD (S-ICD), and the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator.

7 ndication for implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator.

8 ignificantly higher AUC compared with type C defibrillator.

9 prevention of sudden death with implantable defibrillators.

10 These devices included 37 pacemakers and 47 defibrillators.

11 use of publicly available automated external defibrillators.

12 2) ICD Registry for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (158,649 procedures performed in 1,715 ho

13 atients received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, 34 were successfully defibrillated.

14 cemaker (58%) or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (42%) that was not considered to be MRI-co

15 CA occurrence may improve automated external defibrillator accessibility.

16 he defibrillators, although the type A and B defibrillators accounted for a significantly higher AUC

17 Immediate access to an automated external defibrillator (AED) increases the chance of survival for

18 g rhythms shockable by an automatic external defibrillator (AED), implantable cardioverter-defibrilla

19 pital cardiac arrest, but automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are rarely available for bystander

20 Installation of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in schools has been associated wit

21 despread dissemination of automated external defibrillators (AEDs).

22 d rabbit hearts (n=22) and terminated with a defibrillator after 6 minutes.

23 350 (58%) patients, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators alone in 25 (4%) patients, left cardiac s

24 therapy (CRT-D) to an implanted cardioverter-defibrillator alters the risk of atrial fibrillation or

25 on; and n=8 without implantable cardioverter defibrillator although with symptomatic complex VE) were

26 ccess was independent of the features of the defibrillators, although the type A and B defibrillators

27 nonselective post-mortem CIED (pacemaker or defibrillator) analysis in this setting are lacking.

28 atients randomized to implanted cardioverter-defibrillator and 249 (50.3%) randomized to CRT-D.

29 ients randomized to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D), respec

30 tions including the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and heart transplantation (HT) in patients

31 le defibrillator OR implantable cardioverter defibrillator AND non-ischemic cardiomyopathy.

32 patients with prior implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and those randomized only to medical thera

33 c resynchronization implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and VT storm despite greater antiarrhythm

34 less, an automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and who were ineligible for revascularisa

35 tion of cardiac devices, such as pacemakers, defibrillators, and mechanical circulatory support.

36 The implantable cardioverter defibrillator appropriate intervention rate was 8.4% at

37 the placement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator are based on an estimate of a patient's ri

38 Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are indicated for prevention of secondary

39 Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators are indicated in patients with a left ven

40 Patients who have pacemakers or defibrillators are often denied the opportunity to under

41 cohort, and 0.69 in the implantable cardiac defibrillator arm of the validation cohort.

42 showed that in the implantable cardioverter defibrillator arm, each 10-mm Hg decrement of SBP was in

43 tery depletion, as well as a hard reset in a defibrillator as a result of cold exposure.

44 n RWT compared with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator at 12 months (4.6 +/- 6.8% vs. 1.5 +/- 2.7

45 ffect modification (implantable cardioverter defibrillator at baseline, left ventricular ejection fra

46 Patients who had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator at the time of trial enrollment were exclu

47 efibrillator versus implantable cardioverter defibrillator benefit was assessed in multivariate Cox p

48 Although an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator can save lives in individuals with this di

49 terion to determine implantable cardioverter defibrillator candidacy.

50 ad better survival when receiving CRT with a defibrillator compared with those who received CRT witho

51 ceive cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) compared with an implantable cardi

52 undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) implants.

53 esynchronization therapy with a cardioverter defibrillator (CRT-D) on the effect of ICD programming.

54 hospital characteristics associated with CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) use and (2) determine the extent o

55 n all patients and in patients with CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) versus ICD.

56 PR interval (>/=230 ms), receipt of CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) versus implantable cardioverter de

57 -world comparative effectiveness of CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) versus implantable cardioverter-de

58 to cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D), defined as reduction in both left

59 able cardioverter-defibrillator and CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D), respectively (P=0.209).

60 r pacemaker with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (CRT-D).

61 with cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D; CRT with implantable cardioverter-

62 receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-D) have a very wide (>/=180 ms) QRS

63 3%; cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator [CRT-D], 38.9%).

64 otential partnerships for automated external defibrillator deployment in public-access defibrillator

65 ng specific locations for automated external defibrillator deployment incorporating operating hours a

66 iving cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator, diabetes mellitus was independently assoc

67 sts (arrhythmic death or implantable cardiac defibrillator discharge for ventricular fibrillation or

68 rienced appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator discharges, 2 underwent heart transplants,

69 rdiomyopathy (DCM), implantable cardioverter-defibrillators do not increase longevity.

70 posite end point of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator efficacy (arrhythmic deaths and ineffectiv

71 lmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillator explained 41% of the survival variation, a

72 Patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator explantation had an incidence rate of 19.3

73 death, appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator firing, resuscitated cardiac arrest, and h

74 ion of an automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for prevention of sudden death are mainsta

75 nts with DCM for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for primary prevention purposes.

76 (n=204) eligible for an implantable cardiac defibrillator for the primary prevention of sudden cardi

77 hronization therapy implantable cardioverter defibrillator for the treatment of heart failure are mor

78 and utilization of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for prevention of sudden death, and other

79 Women receiving implantable cardioverter defibrillators for primary prevention of sudden cardiac

80 who benefited from implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for sudden death prevention, thereby crea

81 iving cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator from the National Cardiovascular Data Regi

82 d with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators from 2 hospitals between 2009 and 2016 we

83 in OHCA patients where an automated external defibrillator had been used by nonemergency medical serv

84 mpared with those who received CRT without a defibrillator (hazard ratio for mortality adjusted on pr

85 In patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, healthcare utilization (HCU) and expendi

86 sease course for many, including implantable defibrillators, heart transplant, external defibrillatio

87 -saving role of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator highlight the importance of risk stratific

88 D) compared with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) alone are unclear.

89 ator (CRT-D) versus implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) alone in CRT-eligible patients with

90 enefits of CRT over implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) alone.

91 primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) are less likely than men or white pa

92 0 days after MI for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) candidacy.

93 The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has emerged as a novel tool for prev

94 may be prevented by implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation, but patient stratifica

95 revention use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) improves survival in patients with c

96 ival benefit of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in males with arrhythmogenic right v

97 combination with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients who are eligible for thi

98 The benefit of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in patients with symptomatic systoli

99 hed the role of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in the treatment and prevention of s

100 Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) indications for primary prevention i

101 infarction with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is frequent despite antiarrhythmic d

102 The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is the standard therapy to prevent s

103 For the former, an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is typically required due to an elev

104 The implantable-cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead is the most vulnerable componen

105 d or malfunctioning implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead may have the lead either abando

106 T-D were matched to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients without CRT despite having

107 atal outcomes after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement are poorly defined.

108 primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement.

109 and should undergo implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement.

110 Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients require close follow-up t

111 ntion (CathPCI) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) registries of the NCDR.

112 educe the burden of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks in small series of patients w

113 s after appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks, contemporary data to support

114 ce (MR)-conditional implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) systems have become available.

115 had a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) that was "non-MRI-conditional" (i.e.

116 knowledge, whether implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy improves survival for these

117 predict appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy in ischemic cardiomyopathy (

118 on in inappropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy in patients programmed to hi

119 zed to CRT-D versus implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) were compared within the groups of p

120 ude the transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with or without cardiac resynchroniz

121 ator (CRT-D) versus implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), and outcomes.

122 efibrillator (AED), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), or wearable cardioverter-defibrilla

123 rrhythmic events in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)-eligible cardiomyopathy patients.

124 val benefit with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

125 ly effective prevention is implantation of a defibrillator (ICD).

126 uced by means of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

127 monitoring (RPM) of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) and all-cause mortality and rehospi

128 dia pacing (ATP) in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) decreases patient shock burden but

129 monitoring (RM) of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) is an established technology integr

130 s with conventional implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) is contraindicated.

131 primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) may experience an improvement in le

132 Among patients with implantable defibrillators (ICD), use of remote patient monitoring (

133 with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and evaluate associations between

134 Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are a standard means of sudden car

135 Older recipients of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are at increased risk for short-te

136 Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are frequently viewed as a lifelon

137 Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are not recommended within 40 days

138 ac death (SCD), and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are the mainstay of therapy.

139 py; when they fail, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are used but often cause multiple

140 Clinical trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention enrolled a

141 on the efficacy of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention of sudden c

142 he effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention of sudden d

143 Clinical trials of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for secondary prevention of sudden

144 Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have a role in preventing cardiac

145 The programming of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) influences inappropriate shock rat

146 lactic insertion of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) reduces mortality.

147 on in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), but ventricular proarrhythmia is

148 strategy, including implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), heart transplantation, or other t

149 egic programming of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), including faster detection rates,

150 d 160 patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), of whom 94 patients had 24- to 48

151 patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs).

152 of implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs).

153 dy of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators identified from commercial and Medicare s

154 Among 7020 patients referred, 3445 underwent defibrillator implant (79.7% men, median, 66 years [25th

155 26% of whom underwent an implantable cardiac defibrillator implant and 37% underwent cardiac resynchr

156 after cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator implantation among patients with heart fai

157 n patients undergoing de novo or upgrade CRT defibrillator implantation at 3 implant centers in Germa

158 r complications, bleeding, and new pacemaker/defibrillator implantation demonstrated no significant d

159 The typical patient undergoing defibrillator implantation for BrS is asymptomatic but h

160 ance imaging before implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation for primary and secondary pre

161 n cardiac death, or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in a cohort of 2622 stable pa

162 lication related to implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation in comparison with men.

163 best candidates for implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation is one of the most challengin

164 e further study but implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation should not be guided solely o

165 lled in the MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchron

166 (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchron

167 ild HF enrolled in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchron

168 enrolled in MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchron

169 unch block enrolled in Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchron

170 mined 1,214 MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchron

171 n the MADIT-CRT trial (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronizati

172 The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Reduce Inappropriate th

173 ting at the time of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation was performed to evaluate the

174 (MADIT-CRT: Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronizatio

175 ts was modulated by implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation, but not by mutation status a

176 ho may benefit from implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation.

177 ting indication for implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation.

178 tients with DCM for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation.

179 n the indication of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation.

180 hysiological evaluation that could result in defibrillator implantation.

181 to guide patient selection for cardioverter-defibrillator implantation.

182 of sudden cardiac death undergo cardioverter-defibrillator implantation; in patients with severe symp

183 orse after upgrade compared with de novo CRT defibrillator implantations (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% con

184 to CRT-D (n=495) versus nonresynchronization defibrillator (implanted cardioverter-defibrillator; n=4

185 n that the cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator improves survival, quality of life, and se

186 .3%, and 23.4%; and prehospital shock from a defibrillator in 54.7%, 45.0%, and 33.8% (all P<0.05).

187 be averted by implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator in appropriate high-risk patients.

188 with cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator in patients with diabetes mellitus are lim

189 mmend the use of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy fo

190 ing either CRT-D or implantable cardioverter defibrillator in subgroups according to QRS morphology a

191 Accordingly, placement of automated external defibrillators in the community as part of a public acce

192 e Efficacy of ICDs [Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators] in Patients With Non-Ischemic Systolic H

193 ts with primary versus secondary prophylaxis defibrillator indications.

194 ures, and pacemaker/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator insertion and repair.

195 er 1000), pacemaker/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator insertions (1.6 to 4.4 per 1000), nuclear

196 patients (13%) with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator interventions for ventricular tachyarrhyth

197 s and inappropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator interventions.

198 The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is associated with changes in overall qual

199 arly defibrillation by an automated external defibrillator is the most important intervention for pat

200 Implantable cardioverter defibrillator is the only proven lifesaving therapy; how

201 related to cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators is the 30% nonresponse rate.

202 apy, primarily with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, is often recommended for patients with c

203 c and venous structures during pacemaker and defibrillator lead extraction are serious complications

204 econdary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (long QT syndrome, 9; Brugada syndrome, 8

205 An MRI-conditional external defibrillator may improve patient acceptance for MRI pro

206 of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator may offer procedural and cosmetic advantag

207 ing during imaging, while preserving all the defibrillator monitoring and delivery functions.

208 29), or ICED (n = 30) (automatic implantable defibrillator [n = 11] or pacemaker [n = 19]).

209 zation defibrillator (implanted cardioverter-defibrillator; n=477) within the predefined stratum elig

210 illator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator, New York Heart Association II to III, and

211 d into 3 groups according to who applied the defibrillator: nondispatched lay first responders, profe

212 h with CRT-D versus implantable cardioverter-defibrillator only therapy, whereas the effect of CRT-D

213 h CRT-D relative to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator -only.

214 nt AF, dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defib

215 October 31, 2016, for the terms implantable defibrillator OR implantable cardioverter defibrillator

216 xcluded if they had implantable cardioverter defibrillators or permanent pacemakers.

217 a pacing from their implantable cardioverter defibrillator, or both.

218 cular arrhythmia, indication for implantable defibrillator, or new or worsening HF at 6-month follow-

219 ct of an additional implantable cardioverter-defibrillator over CRT, according to underlying heart di

220 frequency of VT in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients with recurrences was reduced by >

221 Efforts to guide automated external defibrillator placement for out-of-hospital cardiac arre

222 of 540) days after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement.

223 proximately 130 000 implantable cardioverter defibrillator placements at a cost of >$3 billion but on

224 al defibrillator deployment in public-access defibrillator programs.

225 Data were abstracted from monitor-defibrillator recordings for the first five minutes of e

226 e patients from the Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Registry (January 1, 2005, through April 3

227 ular Data Registry, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator registry between 2006 and 2009, with up to

228 Ds, pacemakers, and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, respectively.

229 of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) in the United States have not been

230 ge for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) screening.

231 The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) was developed to defibrillate vent

232 ent of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) has provided investigators with

233 vors more often had implantable cardioverter defibrillator's implanted (OR, 2.1 [1.2-3.6]).

234 ents such as appropriate implantable cardiac defibrillator shock (n=4), sustained ventricular tachyca

235 lar rate out of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator shock zone.

236 rhythmia, sudden cardiac arrest, appropriate defibrillator shock, or death in either group.

237 After implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock, related HCU was common, with 1 in 3

238 edures, there was a significant reduction in defibrillator shocks (from a median of 8 per month to 1;

239 er ablation reduced implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks and VT episodes and improved qualit

240 on of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks decreased from 81.2% to 26.8% (p <

241 p 1 experienced multiple implantable cardiac defibrillator shocks for recurrent VT/VF episodes.

242 cardiac arrest and implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks for ventricular fibrillation; and n

243 rdia requiring >/=2 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks occurred in 13 patients, including

244 Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks seem to trigger a cascade of health

245 llation-terminating implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks, and sudden cardiac death.

246 reduces appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks.

247 Prompt implantation of a cardiac defibrillator should be considered in affected patients

248 An MRI-conditional cardiac defibrillator should enable scanning with defibrillation

249 rved in transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator studies.

250 S in a cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillator system.

251 cemaker or a legacy implantable cardioverter-defibrillator system.

252 in CPR and in the use of automated external defibrillators, teaching first responders about team-bas

253 tients at risk currently receive implantable defibrillators that deliver electrical shocks to termina

254 Compared with recipients of defibrillators, the excess mortality in patients who did

255 est, 40 appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapies).

256 month preprocedural implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapies: median 19 ATP events [Q1-Q3=4-9

257 nuated benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy (older adults with multiple comorb

258 ortality or HF with implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy alone.

259 to be referred for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy despite current guideline recommen

260 eceived appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy during medium-term follow-up.

261 ell recognized that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy is associated with both short- and

262 ause the benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy may not be uniform, particularly i

263 Appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy was delivered in 23 patients (29%)

264 th, and appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy was noted.

265 primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy, as opposed to those with ICM.

266 atients receiving de novo versus upgrade CRT defibrillator therapy.

267 were suggested for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy.

268 primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy.

269 h heart failure for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy.

270 Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy.

271 ion of patients for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy.

272 ity from successful implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy.

273 rest or appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy.

274 pacing and implantation of internal cardiac defibrillators to prevent sudden death.

275 with single-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators to record ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) w

276 urse content (63% perform automated external defibrillator training), instructor (47% used CPR-certif

277 Transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (TV-ICDs) improve survival in patients at

278 osis of CPVT and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator underwent a baseline exercise test while r

279 about team-based CPR (eg, automated external defibrillator use and high-performance CPR), and instruc

280 lmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillator use were positively correlated with both o

281 opulmonary resuscitation, automated external defibrillator use, and county-level sociodemographic fac

282 diac arrest, we analyzed recordings from all defibrillators used during resuscitation and measured du

283 low rate of primary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator utilization in patients with inherited arr

284 primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator utilization.

285 e risk of long-term HF or death and CRT with defibrillator versus implantable cardioverter defibrilla

286 deaths versus nonsudden deaths (p < 0.001), defibrillators versus pacemakers (p < 0.005), and cardia

287 oups, cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator was associated with reduction in death (GF

288 An intracardiac cardioverter defibrillator was implanted in 31 patients, of whom 17 h

289 Treatment with implantable cardioverter defibrillator was rare (3%) and resulted in reinterventi

290 A commercial external defibrillator was rendered 1.5 Tesla MRI-conditional by

291 ss mortality in patients who did not receive defibrillators was related to sudden cardiac death in 8.

292 or (CRT-D; CRT with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator) was associated with a greater increase in

293 is study evaluated the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) for use and effectiveness in prevent

294 ty and efficacy of the wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) in a real-world setting are lacking.

295 efibrillator (ICD), or wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD).

296 syndrome patients having implantable cardiac defibrillator were enrolled: 63 (group 1) having documen

297 Implantable cardioverter defibrillators were placed in 121 (54%) and was associat

298 Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators were placed in 59% of patients for new LV

299 s likely to benefit from implantable cardiac defibrillators, which have no impact on nonsudden cardia

300 VF patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, with a median of 3 appropriate shocks per