Comments on the authors’ reply to the critical appraisal concerning “Wearable cardioverter defibrillators for the prevention of sudden cardiac arrest: a health technology assessment and patient focus group study”
Comments on the authors' reply to the critical appraisal concerning ?Wearable cardioverter defibrillators for the prevention of sudden cardiac arrest: a health technology assessment and patient focus group study?
Johannes Sperzel 0
Ingo Staudacher 1
0 Department of Cardiology, Hospital Kerckhoff Klinik GmbH , Bad Nauheim , Germany
1 Department of Cardiology, Medical University Hospital Heidelberg , Heidelberg , Germany
2 Department of Cardiology, Sana-Hospital Lichtenberg , Berlin , Germany
3 Medical Department I, Havelland Kliniken GmbH , Nauen , Germany
4 Department of Public Health, Universita?t Bielefeld , Bielefeld , Germany
5 inav - privates Institut fu?r angewandte Versorgungsforschung GmbH , Berlin , Germany
PowerdbyTCPDF(ww.tcpdf.org) submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com Dovepress Since the authors' reply to our critical appraisal did not properly address the points we raised, we still see need for further clarification. The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is not an adequate substitute for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). The authors state that both can be compared immediately post-myocardial infarction (MI). According to the current guidelines, primary prevention of sudden cardiac death with the ICD within 40 days after MI is generally not indicated.1 Therefore, we disagree with the authors' proposal of conducting such a trial. In this context, the authors mentioned the VEST trial, which compares a WCD population and one receiving medical treatment. There is explicitly no comparison to an ICD population.
-
open access to scientific and medical research
Olaf Goeing 3
Martin Stockburger4 thorsten Meyer 5
Ana Sofia Oliveira
Gon?alves6
Hanna Sydow6
Tonio Schoenfelder 6
Volker Amelung6
8
1
0
2
c
e
D
1
2
n
o
5
0
2
.
7
.
8
6
.
1
5
y
b
/
m
o
c
.
s
s
e
r
p
e
v
o
d
Sperzel et al
large registry studies, which they have excluded. Contrary
by Havelland Kliniken GmbH, and Thorsten Meyer is
to their study methodology, the EUnetHTA guidelines for
employed by Universit?t Bielefeld; none of these authors
safety recommend to evaluate a broad range of studies to
received financial support for contributing to the writing
obtain an exhaustive assessment of adverse reactions with
of this letter. Ana Sofia Oliveira Gon?alves, Hanna Sydow,
wider generalizability.4
Tonio Schoenfelder, and Volker Amelung are employed by
The focus group does not fulfill the criteria of a properly
inav ? privates Institut f?r angewandte
Versorgungsforscconducted qualitative study. There is a lack of a theoretically
hung GmbH [inav ? Institute for Applied Health Services
justified sampling strategy that could allow for drawing
subResearch GmbH]; these four authors received financial
stantial conclusions. In particular, the general idea of saturation
support from Zoll GmbH for contributing to the writing of
in qualitative research has not been taken into consideration
this letter. The authors report no other conflicts of interest
by the authors: only one focus group was conducted
consistin this communication.
ing of only five participants, no women were included, and
none of the participants had any experience in using a WCD.
However, the benefit of a WCD should be judged by a less
selected patient population having experiences in using such a
device. Thus, we conclude that the authors? approach does not
fulfill the intended purpose of conducting a qualitative study.
./www l.yno interview, which does not constitute a HTA. The authors?
This study combined a systematic review with a group
conclusions are not supported by their findings, and therefore,
should be interpreted with caution.
Disclosure
Johannes Sperzel is employed by Hospital Kerckhoff Klinik
GmbH, Ingo Staudacher is employed by Medical University
Hospital Heidelberg, Olaf Goeing is employed by
SanaHospital Lichtenberg, Martin Stockburger is employed
119?177.
244?258.
Dove Medical Press encourages responsible, free and frank academic debate. The content of the Medical Devices: Evidence and Research ?letters to the editor? section does not necessarily
represent the views of Dove Medical Press, its officers, agents, employees, related entities or the Medical Devices: Evidence and Research editors. While all reasonable steps have been taken
to confirm the content of each letter, Dove Medical Press accepts no liability in respect of the content of any letter, nor is it responsible for the content and accuracy of any letter to the editor
Publish your work in this journal
Medical Devices: Evidence and Research is an international,
peerreviewed, open access journal that focuses on the evidence, technology,
research, and expert opinion supporting the use and application of
medical devices in the diagnosis, monitoring, treatment and management of
clinical conditions and physiological processes.The identification of novel
1. Ibanez B , James S , Agewall S , et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients (...truncated)