cardiology careers collections past issues search home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2002; 39:1813-1819
© 2002 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schläpfer, J.u.
Right arrow Articles by Fromer, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schläpfer, J.u.
Right arrow Articles by Fromer, M.

Electrophysiologically guided amiodarone therapy versus the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias after myocardial infarction

Results of long-term follow-up

J.ürg Schläpfer, MD*,*, Fabrice Rapp, MD*, Lukas Kappenberger, MD, FACC* and Martin Fromer, MD*

* Division of Cardiology, University Hospital (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland



View larger version (11K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 1 Global survival was significantly better among patients treated with the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), compared with amiodarone.

 


View larger version (11K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 2 Freedom from sudden cardiac death. The sudden cardiac death rate was significantly lower in patients treated with the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), compared with amiodarone.

 




 
  cardiology careers collections past issues search home