BACKGROUND: Among patients without an indication for a pacemaker, current evidence is inconclusive whether a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is superior to a single-chamber ICD. The current use of dual-chamber ICDs is not well characterized. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study exploring hospital-level variation in the use of dual-chamber ICDs across the United States. Patients receiving a primary prevention ICD from 2006 through 2009 without a documented indication for a pacemaker were included. Multivariate hierarchical logistic regression was used to explore patient, health care provider, and physician factors related to the use of a dual-chamber device. RESULTS: Dual-chamber devices were implanted in 58% of the 87,115 patients without a pacing indication among 1293 hospitals, with hospital rates ranging from 0% in 33 centers to 100% in 109 centers. In multivariate analysis, geographic region was a strong independent predictor of dual-chamber device use, ranging from 36.4% in New England (reference region) to 66.4% in the Pacific region (odds ratio [OR], 5.25; 95% CI, 3.35-8.21). Hospital clustering was assessed using a median OR which was 3.96, meaning that 2 identical patients at different hospitals would have nearly a 4-fold difference in their chance of receiving a dual-chamber ICD. CONCLUSIONS: Use of dual-chamber ICDs for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death among patients without an indication for permanent pacing varies markedly at the hospital level in the United States. This is a clear example of how practice can vary independent of patient factors.
BACKGROUND: Among patients without an indication for a pacemaker, current evidence is inconclusive whether a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is superior to a single-chamber ICD. The current use of dual-chamber ICDs is not well characterized. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study exploring hospital-level variation in the use of dual-chamber ICDs across the United States. Patients receiving a primary prevention ICD from 2006 through 2009 without a documented indication for a pacemaker were included. Multivariate hierarchical logistic regression was used to explore patient, health care provider, and physician factors related to the use of a dual-chamber device. RESULTS: Dual-chamber devices were implanted in 58% of the 87,115 patients without a pacing indication among 1293 hospitals, with hospital rates ranging from 0% in 33 centers to 100% in 109 centers. In multivariate analysis, geographic region was a strong independent predictor of dual-chamber device use, ranging from 36.4% in New England (reference region) to 66.4% in the Pacific region (odds ratio [OR], 5.25; 95% CI, 3.35-8.21). Hospital clustering was assessed using a median OR which was 3.96, meaning that 2 identical patients at different hospitals would have nearly a 4-fold difference in their chance of receiving a dual-chamber ICD. CONCLUSIONS: Use of dual-chamber ICDs for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death among patients without an indication for permanent pacing varies markedly at the hospital level in the United States. This is a clear example of how practice can vary independent of patient factors.
Authors: Brian Olshansky; John D Day; Stephen Moore; Lawrence Gering; Murray Rosenbaum; Maureen McGuire; Scott Brown; Darin R Lerew Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-12-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Thomas A Dewland; Cara N Pellegrini; Yongfei Wang; Gregory M Marcus; Edmund Keung; Paul D Varosy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-08-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Bruce L Wilkoff; James R Cook; Andrew E Epstein; H Leon Greene; Alfred P Hallstrom; Henry Hsia; Steven P Kutalek; Arjun Sharma Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-12-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Daniel B Kramer; Daniel D Matlock; Alfred E Buxton; Nathan E Goldstein; Carol Goodwin; Ariel R Green; James N Kirkpatrick; Christopher Knoepke; Rachel Lampert; Paul S Mueller; Matthew R Reynolds; John A Spertus; Lynne W Stevenson; Susan L Mitchell Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2015-06-02
Authors: Mohammed Shurrab; Amir Janmohamed; Jean-François Sarrazin; Felix Ayala-Paredes; Marcio Sturmer; Randall Williams; Satish Toal; Chris Lane; Kevin E Thorpe; Jeff S Healey; Eugene Crystal Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Emily P Zeitler; Gillian D Sanders; Kavisha Singh; Ruth Ann Greenfield; Anne M Gillis; Bruce L Wilkoff; Jonathan P Piccini; Sana M Al-Khatib Journal: Europace Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Daniel D Matlock; Peter W Groeneveld; Steve Sidney; Susan Shetterly; Glenn Goodrich; Karen Glenn; Stan Xu; Lin Yang; Steven A Farmer; Kristi Reynolds; Andrea E Cassidy-Bushrow; Tracy Lieu; Denise M Boudreau; Robert T Greenlee; Jeffrey Tom; Suma Vupputuri; Kenneth F Adams; David H Smith; Margaret J Gunter; Alan S Go; David J Magid Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Pamela N Peterson; Paul D Varosy; Paul A Heidenreich; Yongfei Wang; Thomas A Dewland; Jeptha P Curtis; Alan S Go; Robert T Greenlee; David J Magid; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Frederick A Masoudi Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 56.272