Counterintuitive Advice About Staying Alive After A Heart Attack

An interventional cardiologist– the cardiologists who put in stents and usually treat heart attack patients in the first few hours– asked an electrophysiologist– the cardiologists who treat arrhythmias– whether wearable defibrillators should be used post-MI. Here’s what that electrophysiologist, Edward J. Schloss, the medical director of cardiac electrophysiology at Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, OH, replied. It is a good example of how sometimes a procedure or a therapy that seems, intuitively, to be worthwhile and beneficial, may actually not be beneficial at all. Here’s his response, which he originally posted on Twitter:

Click here to read the full post on Forbes.

 

Comments

  1. Robert Weitz says:

    “But because these patients remain at risk for an arrhythmia many doctors have assumed that a non-permanent wearable defibrillator, like the LifeVest from Zoll, would be beneficial. After all, it doesn’t require an invasive medical procedure and is less expensive than a permanent ICD.”

    I had this recommended to me and I did a lot of research and then arranged a meeting with my electro-cardiologist. I presented that my data cast serious doubt regarding this wearable ICD and his reply is that they tried it with two patients. One died and the other got so depressed from inappropriate shocks that he attempted suicide.

    So, I would agree that the Zoll wearable vest may have serious downsides.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: