PurposeBased on multiple large clinical trials conducted over the last decades guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations have been evolving. The increase in primary prophylactic ICD implantations challenges us to be critical towards the indications in certain patient populations.MethodsWe retrospectively collected patient characteristics and rates of appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapy, appropriate and inappropriate ICD shock and mortality of all patients who received an ICD in the University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU) over the years 2006–2011.ResultsA total of 1075 patients were included in this analysis (74 % male, mean age 61 ± 13 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 30 ± 13 %); 61 % had a primary indication and 58 % had ischaemic heart disease. During a mean follow-up period of 31 ± 17 months, 227 of the patients (21 %) received appropriate ICD therapy (149 (14 %) patients received an appropriate ICD shock). Females, patients with a primary prophylactic indication and patients with non-ischaemic heart disease experienced significantly less ICD therapy. Only a few patients (54, 5 %) received inappropriate ICD therapy; 33 (3 %) patients received an inappropriate ICD shock. Fifty-five patients died within one year after ICD implantation and were therefore, in retrospect, not eligible for ICD implantation.ConclusionOur study confirms the benefit of ICD implantation in clinical practice. Nevertheless, certain patients experience less benefit than others. A more patient-tailored risk stratification based on electrophysiological parameters would be lucrative to improve clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness.

No abstract

Objectives To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of assessing injuries on cervical spine computed tomography (CT) scans by trained emergency physicians and radiologists, both in a non‐clinical setting. Methods In this comparative diagnostic accuracy study, 411 cervical spine CT scans, of which 120 contained injuries (fractures and/or dislocations), were divided into 8 subsets. Eight emergency physicians received focused training and assessed 1 subset each before and after training. Four radiologists assessed 2 subsets each. Diagnostic accuracy between both groups was compared. The reference standard used was a multiverified data set, assessed by radiologists, neurosurgeons, and emergency physicians. The neurosurgeons also classified whether an "injury in need of stabilizing therapy" (IST) was present. Results Posttraining, the emergency physicians demonstrated increased sensitivity and specificity for identifying cervical spine injuries compared to pretraining: sensitivity 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 80% to 93%) versus 80% (95% CI 72% to 87%) and specificity 89% (95% CI 85% to 93%) versus 86% (95% CI 81% to 89%). When comparing the trained emergency physicians to the group of radiologists, no difference in sensitivity was found, 88% (95% CI 80% to 83%); however, the radiologists showed a significantly higher specificity ( P < 0.01): 99% (95% CI 96% to 100%). In the 12% (15 scans) with missed injuries, emergency physicians missed more ISTs than radiologists, 6 versus 4 scans; however, this difference was not significant ( P = 0.45). Conclusion After focused training and in a non‐clinical setting, no significant difference was found between emergency physicians and radiologists in ruling out cervical spine injuries; however, the radiologists achieved a significantly higher specificity.