Ci-524-04 Risk of Ventricular Arrhythmias Following Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Generator Change in Patients With Recovered Ejection Fraction: Implications for Shared Decision Making

To replace or not to replace: What to do with the implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator generator when the left ventricular function has improved

“…However, none of the prior studies assessed the risk of ICD therapy using an EF cutoff 45% and none provided event rates adjusted for the competing risk of mortality. As such, the study by Chang et al 5 advances the field significantly.…”

“…The field continues to evolve. In this regard, data from the study by Chang et al 5 will be very valuable, to facilitate the discussion between patients and their physicians.…”

“…However, none of the prior studies assessed the risk of ICD therapy using an EF cutoff 45% and none provided event rates adjusted for the competing risk of mortality. As such, the study by Chang et al 5 Ideally, the possibility of not replacing the ICD generator when the device reaches ERI should be introduced at the initial implantation.…”

“…In this issue of the journal, Chang et al present the results of a retrospective cohort study evaluating the risk of appropriate ICD therapies in 423 patients who underwent ICD generator replacement. 5 Notably, all ICDs were implanted for primary prevention of SCD and no patient had received appropriate ICD therapies in the past. The analyses were adjusted for competing risk of death.…”