We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Comment & Response |

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

Ryan T. Borne, MD1; Paul D. Varosy, MD1,2; Frederick A. Masoudi, MD, MSPH1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado
2VA Eastern Colorado Healthcare System, Denver
JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(22):2094. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.10385.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


In Reply We appreciate Rathod and colleagues’ comments regarding the health outcomes after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks among patients receiving an ICD for secondary prevention of sudden death. They emphasize important differences in health outcomes among primary prevention and secondary prevention patients.

While patients receiving primary prevention ICDs represent the majority of records in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) for ICDs (80%),1 substantial numbers of patients receive an ICD because they have survived sudden cardiac death or other life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias. In addition, as Rathod and colleagues describe, the patient population undergoing primary prevention ICD implantation in the randomized clinical trials had lower ejection fractions and were on average older compared with those undergoing secondary prevention implantation in the Antiarrhythmics vs Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial.24 Patients receiving an ICD for secondary prevention are much more likely to receive ICD therapies, including high-energy shocks and/or antitachycardia pacing in the context of the randomized clinical trial. The cumulative percentage of patients in AVID with either antitachycardia pacing or shock was 85% at 3 years, much higher than the 31% rate of ICD shocks at the mean follow-up of nearly 3.5 years among the primary prevention patients in the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT).2,3 Rates of device therapies in contemporary populations of patients receiving secondary prevention ICDs is not well described.


Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





December 9, 2013
Ankit Rathod, MD; Apurva Badheka, MD; Abhishek Deshmukh, MD
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.
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...