I just learned about the Life-Vest (there are probably other brands), which when strapped on will monitor pulse rate and attempt to cardiovert whenever the wearer goes below 40 or 50, or above 120 - as programmed. Can this be an adequate substitute for an ICD - especially when the patient has no insurance?? I have been unable to benefit from cardioversion in ER after 7 tries. EF is less than 40. A--fib is infrequent (1-4 times monthly for anywhere between a few minutes and a few days). MI last December (1 stent). I also like the notion that it not invasive, especially since the recalls.

To follow up, the cardiologist just told me that the wearable unit requires an arc to penetrate skin and other body tissue - about 10 times the energy (measured in joules) that the ICD puts out. To me that just means that the battery will last longer on the ICD. Is there less pain involved, or is it more likely to cardiovert the heart??