1997
DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9149(97)00511-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

There Should Never Be Another Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillator (AVID) Trial

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2003
2003

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 40 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Other studies sug-gest that although the ICD decreases sudden death it does not increase overall survival and does not suppress ventricular arrhythmias.11-13 Although these studies have not clearly defined the ideal treatment regimen for patients with ventricular arrhythmias, many believe that the ICD represents the best clinical course for many patients. [14][15][16] These studies and the publication of guidelines for implantation of pacemakers and ICD devices have resulted in an ever-increasing number of ICDs being implanted. Since their introduction to clinical practice, more than 50,000 of these devices have been implanted.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other studies sug-gest that although the ICD decreases sudden death it does not increase overall survival and does not suppress ventricular arrhythmias.11-13 Although these studies have not clearly defined the ideal treatment regimen for patients with ventricular arrhythmias, many believe that the ICD represents the best clinical course for many patients. [14][15][16] These studies and the publication of guidelines for implantation of pacemakers and ICD devices have resulted in an ever-increasing number of ICDs being implanted. Since their introduction to clinical practice, more than 50,000 of these devices have been implanted.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%