{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01929530201342282, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016778523489932886, 'mean_word_length': 6.017647058823529, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Management of malignant ventricular arrhythmias and cardiac arrest

Sudden cardiac death continues to be a major health problem in the United States, accounting for ∼400,000 deaths per year. The last 10 yrs have seen major advances in the primary and secondary prevention of this problem. In patients who have survived an episode of cardiac arrest, the AVID study conclusively established the superiority of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator over empiric amiodarone. For patients with recurrent hemodynamically destabilizing ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation, intravenous amiodarone has emerged as a potent therapeutic agent, especially when other agents such as lidocaine and procainamide have not been effective. Finally, recent work has focused on the risk stratification of patients for sudden cardiac death. Both the MADIT and MUSTT studies suggest that patients with coronary artery disease, reduced ejection fraction, and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia who are inducible to a sustained ventricular arrhythmia at electrophysiology testing have improved survival with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. (Crit Care Med 2000; 28[Suppl.]:N165–N169)