{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027332704995287466, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.247058823529412, '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}}
Cardioverter-defibrillators: a cost or an investment?

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy has emerged as the most effective treatment for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Most studies indicate that ICD therapy in appropriately selected patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) is associated with cost-effectiveness ratios similar to, or better than, other accepted treatments, including renal dialysis. The up-front costs of ICD therapy are admittedly high and as such, ICD implantation is more akin to an operation than a drug. As would be the case for a life-saving operation, the adoption of short time horizons is apt to lead to underestimations of cost effectiveness. As well as the time horizon, the underlying aetiology of the arrhythmic substrate, implantation technique, ICD battery life, and the presence of co-morbidities are important issues in maximizing cost effectiveness. Above all, we should consider that ICD therapy is the only available option for prolonging survival in patients who are at risk of SCD.