Selecting Patients for ICD Implantation: Are Clinicians Choosing Appropriately? – JAMA January 2011

Posted on January 25, 2011. Filed under: Cardiol / Cardiothor Surg, Evidence Based Practice |

Non–Evidence-Based ICD Implantations in the United States
Sana M. Al-Khatib,  et al    JAMA 2011:305(1):43-49
Abstract

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.
Selecting Patients for ICD Implantation: Are Clinicians Choosing Appropriately?
Alan Kadish, Jeffrey Goldberger
JAMA. 2011;305(1):91-92.

Advertisements

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: