S-ICD: high efficacy for VT/VF

Discussion in 'Boston Scientific' started by Anonymous, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:47 PM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest


  2. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    That's awesome!! Now figure out how to keep the electrode from rotting out of the chest causing infections and extraction, then address the failure of DFT's, then you've got the ass kickin' product you think you have, laughable.... Once the doc has implanted his/her 2 to comply with your "study" then they stop. Good luck bitches
     
  3. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    If you only knew how successful this product is for BSX. Laughable!
     
  4. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    What were the 11% device related complications?
     
  5. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

  6. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Did you even read the article dumbass?

    11% device complication?
    13% Inappropriate shock?
    2% of the arrhythmias are unable to terminate?
    7 patients didn't get the device at implant because it wouldn't convert?
    Population was generally younger men with preserved EF?


    The list goes on and on....Pocket erosion alone should be enough to bury this piece of crap 6 feet deep.
     
  7. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Don't be so negative. When it works. It works. For a couple years at least.
     
  8. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Conclusions
    The S-ICD demonstrated high efficacy for VT/VF. Complications and inappropriate shock rates were reduced consistently with strategic programming and as operator experience increased. These data provide further evidence for the safety and efficacy of the S-ICD. (Boston Scientific Post Market S-ICD Registry [EFFORTLESS]; NCT01085435; S-ICD® System IDE Clinical Study; NCT01064076)

    Are we talking about the same data? Should we pull data from HRS about device longevity and lead reliability?
     
  9. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Are for real????? This little study/registry was put together by BSX. What do you think it was going to say???

    I have seen one extracted due to pocket erosion/infection.... barbaric.
     
  10. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Do you actually read what you write on this board? Cogratulations, you saw one device extracted with infection? How many extractions have you seen of trans venous cans throughout your career? And how do those extractions compare to Sub Q? More dangerous? Less? And is the infection systemic?

    You actually make the argument for Sub-Q. Thank you for that. Please discuss infection risk with my customers so I can continue to sell Sub-Q.
     
  11. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Lighten the fuck up douche bag. They made one anecdotal comment about an extraction. They didn't compare Sub-Q vs. trans venous systems. They didn't bash Sub-Q. It was a simple comment and you get your panties in a wad over that? Might want to get thicker skin if you are trying to sell that device.