CONTEXT: Practice guidelines do not recommend use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention in patients recovering from a myocardial infarction or coronary artery bypass graft surgery and those with severe heart failure symptoms or a recent diagnosis of heart failure. OBJECTIVE: To determine the number, characteristics, and in-hospital outcomes of patients who receive a non-evidence-based ICD and examine the distribution of these implants by site, physician specialty, and year of procedure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Retrospective cohort study of cases submitted to the National Cardiovascular Data Registry-ICD Registry between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: In-hospital outcomes. RESULTS: Of 111,707 patients, 25,145 received non-evidence-based ICD implants (22.5%). Patients who received a non-evidence-based ICD compared with those who received an evidence-based ICD had a significantly higher risk of in-hospital death (0.57% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.48%-0.66%] vs 0.18% [95% CI, 0.15%-0.20%]; P <.001) and any postprocedure complication (3.23% [95% CI, 3.01%-3.45%] vs 2.41% [95% CI, 2.31%-2.51%]; P <.001). There was substantial variation in non-evidence-based ICDs by site. The rate of non-evidence-based ICD implants was significantly lower for electrophysiologists (20.8%; 95% CI, 20.5%-21.1%) than nonelectrophysiologists (24.8% [95% CI, 24.2%-25.3%] for nonelectrophysiologist cardiologists; 36.1% [95% CI, 34.3%-38.0%] for thoracic surgeons; and 24.9% [95% CI, 23.8%-25.9%] for other specialties) (P<.001 for all comparisons). There was no clear decrease in the rate of non-evidence-based ICDs over time (24.5% [6908/28,233] in 2006, 21.8% [7395/33,965] in 2007, 22.0% [7245/32,960] in 2008, and 21.7% [3597/16,549] in 2009; P <.001 for trend from 2006-2009 and P = .94 for trend from 2007-2009). CONCLUSION: Among patients with ICD implants in this registry, 22.5% did not meet evidence-based criteria for implantation.
CONTEXT: Practice guidelines do not recommend use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention in patients recovering from a myocardial infarction or coronary artery bypass graft surgery and those with severe heart failure symptoms or a recent diagnosis of heart failure. OBJECTIVE: To determine the number, characteristics, and in-hospital outcomes of patients who receive a non-evidence-based ICD and examine the distribution of these implants by site, physician specialty, and year of procedure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Retrospective cohort study of cases submitted to the National Cardiovascular Data Registry-ICD Registry between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: In-hospital outcomes. RESULTS: Of 111,707 patients, 25,145 received non-evidence-based ICD implants (22.5%). Patients who received a non-evidence-based ICD compared with those who received an evidence-based ICD had a significantly higher risk of in-hospital death (0.57% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.48%-0.66%] vs 0.18% [95% CI, 0.15%-0.20%]; P <.001) and any postprocedure complication (3.23% [95% CI, 3.01%-3.45%] vs 2.41% [95% CI, 2.31%-2.51%]; P <.001). There was substantial variation in non-evidence-based ICDs by site. The rate of non-evidence-based ICD implants was significantly lower for electrophysiologists (20.8%; 95% CI, 20.5%-21.1%) than nonelectrophysiologists (24.8% [95% CI, 24.2%-25.3%] for nonelectrophysiologist cardiologists; 36.1% [95% CI, 34.3%-38.0%] for thoracic surgeons; and 24.9% [95% CI, 23.8%-25.9%] for other specialties) (P<.001 for all comparisons). There was no clear decrease in the rate of non-evidence-based ICDs over time (24.5% [6908/28,233] in 2006, 21.8% [7395/33,965] in 2007, 22.0% [7245/32,960] in 2008, and 21.7% [3597/16,549] in 2009; P <.001 for trend from 2006-2009 and P = .94 for trend from 2007-2009). CONCLUSION: Among patients with ICD implants in this registry, 22.5% did not meet evidence-based criteria for implantation.
Authors: Stephen C Hammill; Mark S Kremers; Alan H Kadish; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Paul A Heidenreich; Bruce D Lindsay; Michael J Mirro; Martha J Radford; Chuck McKay; Yongfei Wang; Christine M Lang; Kathryn Pontzer; John Rumsfeld; Steve E Phurrough; Jeptha P Curtis; Ralph G Brindis Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2009-07-16 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Arthur J Moss; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Helmut Klein; David J Wilber; David S Cannom; James P Daubert; Steven L Higgins; Mary W Brown; Mark L Andrews Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stefan H Hohnloser; Karl Heinz Kuck; Paul Dorian; Robin S Roberts; John R Hampton; Robert Hatala; Eric Fain; Michael Gent; Stuart J Connolly Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gust H Bardy; Kerry L Lee; Daniel B Mark; Jeanne E Poole; Douglas L Packer; Robin Boineau; Michael Domanski; Charles Troutman; Jill Anderson; George Johnson; Steven E McNulty; Nancy Clapp-Channing; Linda D Davidson-Ray; Elizabeth S Fraulo; Daniel P Fishbein; Richard M Luceri; John H Ip Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeptha P Curtis; Jeffrey J Luebbert; Yongfei Wang; Saif S Rathore; Jersey Chen; Paul A Heidenreich; Stephen C Hammill; Rachel I Lampert; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-04-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gerhard Steinbeck; Dietrich Andresen; Karlheinz Seidl; Johannes Brachmann; Ellen Hoffmann; Dariusz Wojciechowski; Zdzisława Kornacewicz-Jach; Beata Sredniawa; Géza Lupkovics; Franz Hofgärtner; Andrzej Lubinski; Mårten Rosenqvist; Alphonsus Habets; Karl Wegscheider; Jochen Senges Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-10-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alan Kadish; Alan Dyer; James P Daubert; Rebecca Quigg; N A Mark Estes; Kelley P Anderson; Hugh Calkins; David Hoch; Jeffrey Goldberger; Alaa Shalaby; William E Sanders; Andi Schaechter; Joseph H Levine Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sana M Al-Khatib; Melissa A Greiner; Eric D Peterson; Adrian F Hernandez; Kevin A Schulman; Lesley H Curtis Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2008-10
Authors: Steven A Farmer; James N Kirkpatrick; Paul A Heidenreich; Jeptha P Curtis; Yongfei Wang; Peter W Groeneveld Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2008-12-13 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Jorge M Castellanos; Lisa M Smith; Paul D Varosy; Christine Dehlendorf; Gregory M Marcus Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Sana M Al-Khatib; Anne S Hellkamp; Adrian F Hernandez; Gregg C Fonarow; Kevin L Thomas; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Paul A Heidenreich; Stephen Hammill; Clyde Yancy; Eric D Peterson Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-01-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Alan S Go; Dariush Mozaffarian; Véronique L Roger; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; Michael J Blaha; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Sheila Franco; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Michael E Mussolino; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Dilip K Pandey; Nina P Paynter; Matthew J Reeves; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Daniel C DeSimone; Imad M Tleyjeh; Daniel D Correa de Sa; Nandan S Anavekar; Brian D Lahr; Muhammad R Sohail; James M Steckelberg; Walter R Wilson; Larry M Baddour Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 4.749