Notice: Users may be experiencing issues with displaying some pages on stanfordhealthcare.org. We are working closely with our technical teams to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.
 

Learn about the flu shot, COVID-19 vaccine, and our masking policy »

Stanford Health Care

Non-Evidence-Based ICD Implantations in the United States JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Al-Khatib, S. M., Hellkamp, A., Curtis, J., Mark, D., Peterson, E., Sanders, G. D., Heidenreich, P. A., Hernandez, A. F., Curtis, L. H., Hammill, S. 2011; 305 (1): 43-49

Abstract

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.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.Retrospective cohort study of cases submitted to the National Cardiovascular Data Registry-ICD Registry between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2009.In-hospital outcomes.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).Among patients with ICD implants in this registry, 22.5% did not meet evidence-based criteria for implantation.

View details for Web of Science ID 000285924100023

View details for PubMedID 21205965

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC3432303