ICD deactivation in the NY Times — with a quote from a blogger

The news came via a direct message on Twitter. “You got a plug in the NY times. Congrats.” (Thanks Dr. Jay Schloss.) Paula Span, author of the NY Times’ The New Old Age Blog, reported today on the issue of cardiac device deactivation in patients who are approaching end of life. The role I had in the piece stems from the editorial I co-authored with University of Colorado Professor Dr. Dan Matlock in the Journal of the American Medical Association-Internal Medicine.  I think this is my first mention in the Times. It’s especially nifty because end-of-life care is such an important topic. Yes, cardiac devices can do a lot of good for people. They improve lives. They extend lives. I’m not sure why my brain works this way, but when I see an ICD printout showing a sudden death episode averted by something I did, I often think that I once was a paper boy. How’s it possible that a goofball like me could save a life? The hashtag here would be…#beautiful. Or…#I’d-still-go-to-med-school-again. But cardiac devices are no small deal. They come with risks. Serious risks, like this one: essentially every patient with a cardiac device ends up dying with it still implanted. Death is certain, so the once useful device eventually sheds its usefulness. ICDs are implanted to prevent sudden death, but most ICD patients (approximately 14/15) don’t die suddenly; they die of something else, something less peaceful. These truths call doc...
Source: Dr John M - Category: Cardiology Authors: Source Type: blogs