|
|
||||||||||
|
J Am Coll Cardiol, 2005; 46:2204-2207, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2005.08.034 © 2005 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation |
Department of Cardiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Rennes, France
Manuscript received August 4, 2005; accepted August 9, 2005.
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Jean-Claude Daubert, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Department of Cardiology, F-35000 Rennes, France. (Email: jean-claude.daubert{at}chu-rennes.fr).
Patients with chronic heart failure might benefit from electrical therapy with a view to resynchronize the heart and improve its mechanical performance by cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) or to prevent the risk of sudden death by automatic defibrillation. These two therapies can be applied separately or with a combined device, the biventricular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (CRT-D). There is currently no strong scientific evidence indicating that a CRT-D must be offered to all candidates for CRT. Plain common sense should limit the prescription of these costly devices for patients in need of secondary prevention or for younger patients without major comorbidities. The preferential choice of CRT pacemakers in the remainder of patients is currently a logical one.
| |||||||||||
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
O.-A. Breithardt and G. Breithardt Quest for the Best Candidate: How Much Imaging Do We Need Before Prescribing Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy? Circulation, February 21, 2006; 113(7): 926 - 928. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | SUBSCRIPTIONS | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | CARDIOSOURCE | SEARCH | HELP | FEEDBACK |