BACKGROUND: A 2008 expert consensus statement outlined the minimum frequency of follow-up of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 38 055 Medicare beneficiaries who received a new CIED between January 1, 2005, and June 30, 2009. The main outcome measure was variation of follow-up by patient factors and year of device implantation. We determined the number of patients who were eligible for and attended an in-person CIED follow-up visit within 2 to 12 weeks, 0 to 16 weeks, and 1 year after implantation. Among eligible patients, 42.4% had an initial in-person visit within 2 to 12 weeks. This visit was significantly more common among white patients than black patients and patients of other races (43.0% versus 36.8% versus 40.5%; P<0.001). Follow-up within 2 to 12 weeks improved from 40.3% in 2005 to 55.1% in 2009 (P<0.001 for trend). The rate of follow-up within 0 to 16 weeks was 65.1% and improved considerably from 2005 to 2009 (62.3%-79.6%; P<0.001 for trend). Within 1 year, 78.0% of the overall population had at least 1 in-person CIED follow-up visit. CONCLUSIONS: Although most Medicare beneficiaries who received a new CIED between 2005 and 2009 did not have an initial in-person CIED follow-up visit within 2 to 12 weeks after device implantation, the rate of initial follow-up improved appreciably over time. This CIED follow-up visit was significantly more common in white patients than in patients of other races.
BACKGROUND: A 2008 expert consensus statement outlined the minimum frequency of follow-up of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 38 055 Medicare beneficiaries who received a new CIED between January 1, 2005, and June 30, 2009. The main outcome measure was variation of follow-up by patient factors and year of device implantation. We determined the number of patients who were eligible for and attended an in-personCIED follow-up visit within 2 to 12 weeks, 0 to 16 weeks, and 1 year after implantation. Among eligible patients, 42.4% had an initial in-person visit within 2 to 12 weeks. This visit was significantly more common among white patients than black patients and patients of other races (43.0% versus 36.8% versus 40.5%; P<0.001). Follow-up within 2 to 12 weeks improved from 40.3% in 2005 to 55.1% in 2009 (P<0.001 for trend). The rate of follow-up within 0 to 16 weeks was 65.1% and improved considerably from 2005 to 2009 (62.3%-79.6%; P<0.001 for trend). Within 1 year, 78.0% of the overall population had at least 1 in-personCIED follow-up visit. CONCLUSIONS: Although most Medicare beneficiaries who received a new CIED between 2005 and 2009 did not have an initial in-personCIED follow-up visit within 2 to 12 weeks after device implantation, the rate of initial follow-up improved appreciably over time. This CIED follow-up visit was significantly more common in white patients than in patients of other races.
Authors: Michael R Bristow; Leslie A Saxon; John Boehmer; Steven Krueger; David A Kass; Teresa De Marco; Peter Carson; Lorenzo DiCarlo; David DeMets; Bill G White; Dale W DeVries; Arthur M Feldman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anthony S L Tang; George A Wells; Mario Talajic; Malcolm O Arnold; Robert Sheldon; Stuart Connolly; Stefan H Hohnloser; Graham Nichol; David H Birnie; John L Sapp; Raymond Yee; Jeffrey S Healey; Jean L Rouleau Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-14 Impact factor: 91.245
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: 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: 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: 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: Paul L Hess; Xiaojuan Mi; Lesley H Curtis; Bruce L Wilkoff; Donald D Hegland; Sana M Al-Khatib Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Arn Migowski; Antonio Luiz Ribeiro; Marilia Sá Carvalho; Vitor Manuel Pereira Azevedo; Rogério Brant Martins Chaves; Lucas de Aquino Hashimoto; Carolina de Aquino Xavier; Regina Maria de Aquino Xavier Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: James P Hummel; Robert J Leipold; Stacey L Amorosi; Haikun Bao; Kristen A Deger; Paul W Jones; Anuraag R Kansal; Lesli S Ott; Sean Stern; Kenneth Stein; Jeptha P Curtis; Joseph G Akar Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2019-04-29