Meta-analysis of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator secondary prevention trials. AVID, CASH and CIDS studies. Antiarrhythmics vs Implantable Defibrillator study. Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg…

By S. Connolly, A. Hallstrom, R. Cappato, E. Schron, K. Kuck, D. Zipes, H. L. Greene, S. Boczor, M. Domanski, D. Follmann and 2 more. European Heart Journal, 2000

1,133 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4e6a6d05594ef9f6c45a1d97b8f04ec819c5e93e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Citations in the corpus

2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the preventionof sudden cardiac death (2015, positive): “006) reduction in total mortality (Web Table 5).(154) An analysis of the AVID trial results clearly demonstrated that the benefit was confined primarily to patients with an LVEF between 20 and 34%.”
ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities. (2008, background): “The ICD has been shown to be superior to amiodarone for secondary prevention of VT and VF in studies in which the majority of patients had coronary artery disease (322,323,336), but the subgroups with nonischemic DCM in these studies benefited similarly (319,322,323) or more than the group with isch”
Task Force on Sudden Cardiac Death of the European Society of Cardiology. (2001, methodology): “In addition, post-hoc analysis on pooled data from AVID, CIDS and CASH([243]) suggest that patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy are likely to receive more benefit from ICD than amiodarone treatment (hazard ratio 0·78;”