The Controversy over Guidant's Implantable Defibrillators
- 21 July 2005
- journal article
- Published by Massachusetts Medical Society in New England Journal of Medicine
- Vol. 353 (3) , 221-224
- https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmp058158
Abstract
On October 4, 2001, Joshua Oukrop, a Minnesota teenager with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and a high risk of sudden death from ventricular fibrillation, received an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD). The device was a Ventak Prizm 2 DR Model 1861 manufactured by Guidant (Indianapolis). After it was implanted, Oukrop's physicians at the Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation checked it every three months (most recently on January 31, 2005) and found no problems.1 On March 14, 2005, Oukrop, then a 21-year-old college student, collapsed and died in a remote area of southeastern Utah during a spring-break bicycling trip with his girlfriend.1,2 An autopsy revealed . . .Keywords
This publication has 2 references indexed in Scilit:
- Unpredictable implantable cardioverter-defibrillator pulse generator failure due to electrical overstress causing sudden death in a young high-risk patient with hypertrophic cardiomyopathyHeart Rhythm, 2005
- Efficacy of Implantable Cardioverter–Defibrillators for the Prevention of Sudden Death in Patients with Hypertrophic CardiomyopathyNew England Journal of Medicine, 2000