The role of the automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (AICD) in the treatment of medically refractory ventricular arrhythmias

Direct operation versus ICD therapy for ischemic ventricular tachycardia

Now that the implantable cardioverter defibrillator is available as a therapeutic option for the management of ventricular tachycardia (VT), some argue that there no longer should be a role for direct surgical intervention for this malignant arrhythmia. Rebuttal of this argument is difficult for the following reasons: (1) there are many patients who are candidates for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy but not for direct VT operation, and thus direct comparisons of the two therapies is difficult; (2) implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy by definition is palliative, but a VT operation is curative in most instances; (3) in many electrophysiologic triage algorithms, implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator and VT operation are employed as alternative, not competitive, therapies, again making direct comparisons difficult; and (4) probably most importantly, there are misconceptions in the literature regarding the risks and benefits of direct VT surgical procedures as they are currently performed. In this brief review, we examine the currently available data on both sides of this argument.

The future of arrhythmia surgery

The future of arrhythmia surgery is discussed in light of the 25 years of historical developments that have led to the present explosion in antiarrhythmic therapies and technologies. The role of the arrhythmia surgeon in these developments is outlined, along with a number of exciting near-term and far-term developments that will continue to revolutionize therapeutic interventions for arrhythmia problems.