OBJECTIVES: This study sought to define contemporary trends in permanent pacemaker use by analyzing a large national database. BACKGROUND: The Medicare National Coverage Determination for permanent pacemaker, which emphasized single-chamber pacing, has not changed significantly since 1985. We sought to define contemporary trends in permanent pacemaker use by analyzing a large national database. METHODS: We queried the Nationwide Inpatient Sample to identify permanent pacemaker implants between 1993 and 2009 using the International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification procedure codes for dual-chamber (DDD), single-ventricular (VVI), single-atrial (AAI), or biventricular (BiV) devices. Annual permanent pacemaker implantation rates and patient demographics were analyzed. RESULTS: Between 1993 and 2009, 2.9 million patients received permanent pacemakers in the United States. Overall use increased by 55.6%. By 2009, DDD use increased from 62% to 82% (p < 0.001), whereas single-chamber ventricular pacemaker use fell from 36% to 14% (p = 0.01). Use of DDD devices was higher in urban, nonteaching hospitals (79%) compared with urban teaching hospitals (76%) and rural hospitals (72%). Patients with private insurance (83%) more commonly received DDD devices than Medicaid (79%) or Medicare (75%) recipients (p < 0.001). Patient age and Charlson comorbidity index increased over time. Hospital charges ($2011) increased 45.3%, driven by the increased cost of DDD devices. CONCLUSIONS: There is a steady growth in the use of permanent pacemakers in the United States. Although DDD device use is increasing, whereas single-chamber ventricular pacemaker use is decreasing. Patients are becoming older and have more medical comorbidities. These trends have important health care policy implications.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to define contemporary trends in permanent pacemaker use by analyzing a large national database. BACKGROUND: The Medicare National Coverage Determination for permanent pacemaker, which emphasized single-chamber pacing, has not changed significantly since 1985. We sought to define contemporary trends in permanent pacemaker use by analyzing a large national database. METHODS: We queried the Nationwide Inpatient Sample to identify permanent pacemaker implants between 1993 and 2009 using the International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification procedure codes for dual-chamber (DDD), single-ventricular (VVI), single-atrial (AAI), or biventricular (BiV) devices. Annual permanent pacemaker implantation rates and patient demographics were analyzed. RESULTS: Between 1993 and 2009, 2.9 million patients received permanent pacemakers in the United States. Overall use increased by 55.6%. By 2009, DDD use increased from 62% to 82% (p < 0.001), whereas single-chamber ventricular pacemaker use fell from 36% to 14% (p = 0.01). Use of DDD devices was higher in urban, nonteaching hospitals (79%) compared with urban teaching hospitals (76%) and rural hospitals (72%). Patients with private insurance (83%) more commonly received DDD devices than Medicaid (79%) or Medicare (75%) recipients (p < 0.001). Patient age and Charlson comorbidity index increased over time. Hospital charges ($2011) increased 45.3%, driven by the increased cost of DDD devices. CONCLUSIONS: There is a steady growth in the use of permanent pacemakers in the United States. Although DDD device use is increasing, whereas single-chamber ventricular pacemaker use is decreasing. Patients are becoming older and have more medical comorbidities. These trends have important health care policy implications.
Authors: Kolade M Agboola; Jin-Moo Lee; Xiaoyan Liu; Eric Novak; Phillip S Cuculich; Daniel H Cooper; Amit Noheria Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Maria Kotsakou; Ioannis Kioumis; George Lazaridis; Georgia Pitsiou; Sofia Lampaki; Antonis Papaiwannou; Anastasia Karavergou; Kosmas Tsakiridis; Nikolaos Katsikogiannis; Ilias Karapantzos; Chrysanthi Karapantzou; Sofia Baka; Ioannis Mpoukovinas; Vasilis Karavasilis; Aggeliki Rapti; Georgia Trakada; Athanasios Zissimopoulos; Konstantinos Zarogoulidis; Paul Zarogoulidis Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2015-03
Authors: Vaibhav R Vaidya; Christopher V DeSimone; Samuel J Asirvatham; Vishnu M Chandra; Amit Noheria; David O Hodge; Joshua P Slusser; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Paul A Friedman Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2014-04-27 Impact factor: 1.900