Journal
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
Volume 309, Issue 19, Pages 2025-2034Publisher
AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.4982
Keywords
-
Categories
Funding
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [K08 HS019814-01]
- American College of Cardiology Foundation's National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR)
- Boston Scientific
- Oklahoma Foundation for Medical Quality
- American College of Cardiology Foundation
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Importance Randomized trials of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention predominantly used single-chamber devices. In clinical practice, patients often receive dual-chamber ICDs, even without clear indications for pacing. The outcomes of dual-vs single-chamber devices are uncertain. Objective To compare outcomes of single-and dual-chamber ICDs for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. Design, Setting, and Participants Retrospective cohort study of admissions in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's (NCDR) ICD registry from 2006-2009 that could be linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services fee-for-service Medicare claims data. Patients were included if they received an ICD for primary prevention and did not have a documented indication for pacing. Main Outcomes and Measures Adjusted risks of 1-year mortality, all-cause readmission, heart failure readmission, and device-related complications within 90 days were estimated with propensity-score matching based on patient, clinician, and hospital factors. Results Among 32 034 patients, 12 246 (38%) received a single-chamber device and 19 788 (62%) received a dual-chamber device. In a propensity-matched cohort, rates of complications were lower for single-chamber devices (3.51% vs 4.72%; P<.001; risk difference, -1.20 [95% CI, -1.72 to -0.69]), but device type was not significantly associated with 1-year mortality (unadjusted rate, 9.85% vs 9.77%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.07]; P=.79), 1-year all-cause hospitalization (unadjusted rate, 43.86% vs 44.83%; HR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.97-1.04]; P=.82), or hospitalization for heart failure (unadjusted rate, 14.73% vs 15.38%; HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.99-1.12]; P=.19). Conclusions and Relevance Among patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention without indications for pacing, the use of a dual-chamber device compared with a single-chamber device was associated with a higher risk of device-related complications and similar 1-year mortality and hospitalization outcomes. Reasons for preferentially using dual-chamber ICDs in this setting remains unclear.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available