{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015503875968992248, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.359605911330049, '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}}
What is the role for revascularisation in patients being considered for ICD therapy?

Patients being considered for ICD therapy are a heterogeneous group.For the vast majority, who have significant left ventricular impairment, it has become common practice to assess their coronary artery anatomy as a surrogate for ischaemia and/or viability. Such patients are therefore frequently under the care of both electrophysiologists and interventionists. The coronary anatomy often raises the dilemma about whether such patients should undergo revascularisation. If the patients present with angina or in the context of an acute myocardial infarct then this decision is clear cut. By contrast, however, a significant proportion of them have no history to suggest ongoing ischaemia or of recent MI. In conventional practice, therefore, there would be no decisive mandate to offer them revascularisation, especially PCI, in the absence of further objective evidence of ischaemia or viability. A review of the literature in our paper does not resolve this dilemma.Further observational data are required to help guide cardiologists as to which of these patients will benefit from revascularisation, since in many cases the coronary anatomy is no surrogate for the presence of ischaemia or viability.