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

Association of Physician Certification and Outcomes Among Patients Receiving an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator 81st Annual Scientific Session of the American-Heart-Association Curtis, J. P., Luebbert, J. J., Wang, Y., Rathore, S. S., Chen, J., Heidenreich, P. A., Hammill, S. C., Lampert, R. I., Krumholz, H. M. AMER MEDICAL ASSOC. 2009: 1661–70

Abstract

Allowing nonelectrophysiologists to perform implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) procedures is controversial. However, it is not known whether outcomes of ICD implantation vary by physician specialty.To determine the association of implanting physician certification with outcomes following ICD implantation.Retrospective cohort study using cases submitted to the ICD Registry performed between January 2006 and June 2007. Patients were grouped by the certification status of the implanting physician into mutually exclusive categories: electrophysiologists, nonelectrophysiologist cardiologists, thoracic surgeons, and other specialists. Hierarchical logistic regression models were developed to determine the independent association of physician certification with outcomes.In-hospital procedural complication rates and the proportion of patients meeting criteria for a defibrillator with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) who received that device.Of 111,293 ICD implantations included in the analysis, 78,857 (70.9%) were performed by electrophysiologists, 24,399 (21.9%) by nonelectrophysiologist cardiologists, 1862 (1.7%) by thoracic surgeons, and 6175 (5.5%) by other specialists. Compared with patients whose ICD was implanted by electrophysiologists, patients whose ICD was implanted by either nonelectrophysiologist cardiologists or thoracic surgeons were at increased risk of complications in both unadjusted (electrophysiologists, 3.5% [2743/78,857]; nonelectrophysiologist cardiologists, 4.0% [970/24,399]; thoracic surgeons, 5.8% [108/1862]; P < .001) and adjusted analyses (relative risk [RR] for nonelectrophysiologist cardiologists, 1.11 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.01-1.21]; RR for thoracic surgeons, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.15-1.79]). Among 35,841 patients who met criteria for CRT-D, those whose ICD was implanted by physicians other than electrophysiologists were significantly less likely to receive a CRT-D device compared with patients whose ICD was implanted by an electrophysiologist in both unadjusted (electrophysiologists, 83.1% [21 303/25,635]; nonelectrophysiologist cardiologists, 75.8% [5950/7849]; thoracic surgeons, 57.8% [269/465]; other specialists, 74.8% [1416/1892]; P < .001) and adjusted analyses (RR for nonelectrophysiologist cardiologists, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.91-0.95]; RR for thoracic surgeons, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.74-0.88]; RR for other specialists, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94-0.99]).In this registry, nonelectrophysiologists implanted 29% of ICDs. Overall, implantations by a nonelectrophysiologist were associated with a higher risk of procedural complications and lower likelihood of receiving a CRT-D device when indicated compared with patients whose ICD was implanted by an electrophysiologist.

View details for Web of Science ID 000265350700022

View details for PubMedID 19383957

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC2805129