[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.197.142.219. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Comment & Response
December 9/23, 2013

Impact of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy on a Secondary Prevention Population

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Cardiology, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
  • 2Department of Cardiology, University of Miami, Miami, Florida
  • 3Department of Cardiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(22):2093-2094. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.10402

To the Editor We read with great interest the recent article by Borne et al.1 The researchers should be congratulated for having provided a detailed review on implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapies and their effects on health outcomes and strategies to reduce these therapies. The adverse prognostic value of ICD therapies (shocks and antitachycardia pacing) in a primary prevention population has been well proven in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) and the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT). However the implications of ICD shocks in a secondary prevention population is unclear.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×