[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Editorial
Apr 23, 2012

Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Nonpacing IndicationsComment on “Variation in Use of Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators”

Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(8):641. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.710

Despite the absence of data to support benefit for patients receiving a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) compared with a single-chamber ICD for a nonpacing indication, most implants are of dual-chamber ICDs. In contrast to the lack of data for benefit, there are data from multiple randomized and observational trials suggesting increased harm. A recent National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) analysis found that procedural complications, including in-hospital mortality, were at least 40% greater for dual-chamber compared with single-chamber devices. In this issue, in an analysis of NCDR data from 2006 to 2009, Matlock et al found wide geographic variation with a 4-fold difference in the chance of receiving dual-chamber ICDs. This varied and widespread use of dual-chamber devices for nonpacing indications has no known benefit and definite harms, and is designated as Less Is More.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×