Introduction
The use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators to deliver shocks is used as a life-saving approach when treating ventricular fibrillation events and ventricular tachycardia (Miyake et al., 579). The continued use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators to deliver shocks is not based on the knowledge of its effectiveness. Several studies have shown that this approach is associated with some negative effects. For instance, Miyake et al., (579) reported that the efficacy of implantable cardioverter defibrillators is unknown even though it is continually used. Miyake et al., (579) further reports that the use implantable cardioverter defibrillators has been to result inappropriate discharges. The discharges result in morbidity and mortality of the patients on whom the implantable cardioverter defibrillators is used as a treatment procedure. Studies have also shown that the rate of mortality is higher among the patients who receive implantable cardioverter defibrillators shocks compared to the patients on whom the implantable cardioverter defibrillators shocks are not used as a treatment procedure for ventricular fibrillation events and ventricular tachycardia.
Null Hypothesis
There is not statistically significant difference between the mortality rates of the patients who received implantable cardioverter defibrillators shocks compared to the mortality of the patients who did not receive implantable cardioverter defibrillators shocks in the treatment of ventricular fibrillation events and ventricular tachycardia.
Alternative Hypothesis
There is a statistically significant difference between the mortality rates of the patients who received implantable cardioverter defibrillators shocks compared to the mortality of the patients who did not receive implantable cardioverter defibrillators shocks in the treatment of ventricular fibrillation events and ventricular tachycardia.
Methods
This paper uses a mock experimental design. The experimental group will contain patients who have been subjected to the implantable cardioverter defibrillators shocks in the treatment of ventricular fibrillation events and ventricular tachycardia. The control group will consist of patients whose treatment of ventricular fibrillation events and ventricular tachycardia did not require the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators shocks. The mortality rate of the patients in the two groups will be compared.
Procedures
Given that this is a mock study, the data to be used was derived using a random number generator to ensure that the bias of the researcher did not reflect on the data to be used for the analysis. The mock data means that retrospective data would not be collected for both the control and experimental group. Instead, the data for the mock subject for both the control and experimental group was populated using the random number function in Microsoft Excel software. It is this data that was used for the analysis.
Measures
The random numbers generated were then entered into a data analysis platform prepared through Microsoft Excel.
Statistical Analysis
In addition to the descriptive statistics, the t-tests will be performed to test where there was a significant difference between the mortality rates when the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators shocks were given to patients in the treatment of ventricular fibrillation events and ventricular tachycardia compared to the mortality rates when the implantable cardioverter defibrillators shocks were not given to patients.
Results
Since the t Stat (5.813776741) is bigger than the t Critical two-tail (4.30265273), the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between the mortality rates among the patients who received implantable cardioverter defibrillators shocks were given to patients in the treatment of ventricular fibrillation events and ventricular tachycardia compared to the mortality rates when the implantable cardioverter defibrillators shocks were not given to patients is rejected. The alternative hypothesis that mortality rates are different is accepted. The indication of the findings is that there are more mortalities when implantable cardioverter defibrillators shocks were given to patients in the treatment of ventricular fibrillation events and ventricular tachycardia compared to the mortality rates when the implantable cardioverter defibrillators shocks were not given to patients
Discussion
Implantable cardioverter defibrillators have been used successfully in the treatment of patients. Of concern is the tendency for increased mortality rates when implantable cardioverter defibrillators are used compared to when they are not used in the treatment of ventricular fibrillation events and ventricular tachycardia. Yung et al., reported the findings of prospective study where they found that there was increased mortality when the implantable cardioverter defibrillators were used for both the primary and secondary prevention. Poole et al., (1009) also reported that there was an increased risk of death for patients diagnosed with heart failure and in whom implantable cardioverter defibrillators were fitted to induce shocks whenever there was a heart arrhythmia.
The risk for mortality was higher when this group of patients was compared with similar patients to whom the implantable cardioverter defibrillators were not used. These reports are consistent with the findings of the mock study where there is a higher death rate when implantable cardioverter defibrillators shocks were given to patients in the treatment of ventricular fibrillation events and ventricular tachycardia compared to the mortality rates when the implantable cardioverter defibrillators shocks were not given to patients.
Works Cited
Miyake, Christina, Webster, Gregory, Czosek, Richard, Kantoch, Michal, Dubin, Anne, Avasarala, Kishor, and Atallah, Joseph. Efficacy of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Young Patients with Catecholaminergic Polymorphic Ventricular Tachycardia. Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. 13.3(2013): 579-587.
Poole, Jeanne, Johnson, George, Hellkamp, Anne, Anderson, Jill, Callans, David, Raitt, Merritt, Reddu, Ramakota, Marchlinski, Francis, Yee, Raymond, Guarnieri, Thomas, Talajic, Mario, Wilber, David, Fishbein, Daniel, Packer, Douglas, Mark, Daniel, Lee, Kerry and Bardy, Gust. Prognostic Importance of Defibrillator Shocks in Patients with Heart Failure. New England Journal of Medicine. 235(2008): 1009-1017.
Yung, David, Birnie, David, Dorian, Paul, Healey, Jeffrey, Simpson, Christopher, Crystal, Eugene, Krahn, Andrew, Khaykin, Yaariv, Cameron, Douglas, Chen, Zhongliang and Lee, Douglas. Survival after Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation in the Elderly Clinical Perspective. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.001442
