Risk Stratification for ICDs: The Debate Rages On
The clinical trials MADIT II and SCD-HeFT definitively proved the benefit of ICDs for preventing the risk of sudden cardiac death and paved the way for reimbursement. But now that the excitement has died down, the confusion has set in. Clinicians aren't entirely sure in which real-world patients to implant devices. The debate about the proper methods of risk stratifying patients for ICD implantation rages on.
You may also be interested in...
Although big companies grabbed the headlines with problems, 2006 proved to be a strong year for the medical device industry and growth prospects look strong. Our selection of the device industry highlights of 2006 includes: Boston Scientific-Guidant deal: the winner may be Abbott; Device IPO market remains strong; Drug-eluting stent safety debate; Conflicts of interest: (physician relationships with companies); The bid for Biomet; VC Pendulum shifts towards medical devices; Kyphon bids for St. Francis; and Diagnostic imaging and in vitro diagnostics converge.
Cardiovascular investigators are now asking new questions, including how can treatment be targeted to those most likely to benefit, and when does aggressive treatment become too much? At the 2006 American Heart Association (AHA) meeting, these questions were at the top of everyone's list, and several highly anticipated studies attempted to provide some answers.
There was probably no group more relieved than the makers of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) to see the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) in August drastically modify its proposal to slash hospital reimbursement. The change is as a result of effective lobbying from the medical device community as well as the hospital industry, and is welcome news to all high-end device makers.