Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Published 23 March 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b874
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b874
Michael F ORourke, professor of medicine
1 University of New South Wales and St Vincents Clinic, 438 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010, Australia
Correspondence to: M F ORourke m.orourke@unsw.edu.au
Should people who risk of reinfarction have defibrillators available at home? Michael F ORourke thinks that enthusiasm is an important factor (doi:10.1136/bmj.b874); Mathew Hutchinson and David Callans say at home defibrillators do not save additional lives (doi:10.1136/bmj.b876)
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Ventricular fibrillation causes most of the sudden non-traumatic deaths in Western society—up to 400 000 deaths a year in the United States alone.1 Most deaths occur in people without known heart disease, but many occur in people with known coronary artery disease.1 Defibrillators in aircraft, airports, railway stations, sports stadiums, police patrol cars, gymnasiums, and various public places are designed for the population at large,2 and in these locations their use is regarded as cost effective.3 Like fire extinguishers, they seem to be for use in a rare emergency.
Guidelines for the implantation of defibrillators now include patients of all ages whose left ventricular ejection fraction is less than 30% but who have a prospect of living without major cardiac disability for two years.4 Implantation of a defibrillator is encouraged by manufacturers and by proceduralists, who fear that deviating from guidelines may be a cause for legal action. Together with
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?