Reply to: 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”

Abstract

Sabine Ettinger,1 Michal Stanak,1 Piotr Szymański,2 Claudia Wild,1 Romana Tandara Haček,3 Darija Erčević,3 Renata Grenković,3 Gregor Goetz,1 Mirjana Huić3 1Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment, Vienna, Austria; 2Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland; 3Department for Development, Research, and Health Technology Assessment, Agency for Quality and Accreditation in Health Care and Social Welfare, Zagreb, CroatiaAlthough we clearly outlined our answers in our previous letter,1 we are pleased to clarify further any remaining open issues. There might be diverse views with regard to comparators of the wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD). We would like to refer the readers to our previous answer,1 where we explained our rationale for choosing the implantable cardioverter defibrillator as one of the comparators. It was selected based on broad indications stated in the CE mark and after discussions with clinicians. Furthermore, in this case, a change of the comparator, ie, the implantable cardioverter defibrillator, would not have led to a different result or conclusion.View the original paper by Ettinger and colleagues.Two previous letters have been published Sperzel et al Sperzel et a