Variation in Use of Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Results From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry | Cardiology | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.173.234.169. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB,  et al; Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) Investigators.  Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure.  N Engl J Med. 2005;352(3):225-23715659722PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Kadish A, Dyer A, Daubert JP,  et al; Defibrillators in Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Treatment Evaluation (DEFINITE) Investigators.  Prophylactic defibrillator implantation in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy.  N Engl J Med. 2004;350(21):2151-215815152060PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ,  et al; Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II Investigators.  Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction.  N Engl J Med. 2002;346(12):877-88311907286PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
McClellan MB, Tunis SR. Medicare coverage of ICDs.  N Engl J Med. 2005;352(3):222-22415659721PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  National coverage decision for implantable automatic defibrillators. https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/ncd-details.aspx?NCDId=110& ncdver=3& bc=AgAAQAAAAAAA& . Accessed January 9, 2012
6.
Epstein AE, DiMarco JP, Ellenbogen KA,  et al; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices); American Association for Thoracic Surgery; Society of Thoracic Surgeons.  ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for Device-Based Therapy of Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices): developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.  Circulation. 2008;117(21):e350-e40818483207PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Dewland TA, Pellegrini CN, Wang Y, Marcus GM, Keung E, Varosy PD. Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator selection is associated with increased complication rates and mortality among patients enrolled in the NCDR implantable cardioverter-defibrillator registry.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(10):1007-101321867834PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Kadish A, Mehra M. Heart failure devices: implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and biventricular pacing therapy.  Circulation. 2005;111(24):3327-333515967863PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Almendral J, Arribas F, Wolpert C,  et al; DATAS Steering Committee; DATAS Writing Committee; DATAS Investigators.  Dual-chamber defibrillators reduce clinically significant adverse events compared with single-chamber devices: results from the DATAS (Dual chamber and Atrial Tachyarrhythmias Adverse events Study) trial.  Europace. 2008;10(5):528-53518390985PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Theuns DAMJ, Klootwijk AP, Goedhart DM, Jordaens LJLM. Prevention of inappropriate therapy in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results of a prospective, randomized study of tachyarrhythmia detection algorithms.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44(12):2362-236715607399PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Deisenhofer I, Kolb C, Ndrepepa G,  et al.  Do current dual chamber cardioverter defibrillators have advantages over conventional single chamber cardioverter defibrillators in reducing inappropriate therapies? a randomized, prospective study.  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2001;12(2):134-14211232608PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Friedman PA, McClelland RL, Bamlet WR,  et al.  Dual-chamber vs single-chamber detection enhancements for implantable defibrillator rhythm diagnosis: the detect supraventricular tachycardia study.  Circulation. 2006;113(25):2871-287916769912PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Wilkoff BL, Cook JR, Epstein AE,  et al; Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator Trial Investigators.  Dual-chamber pacing or ventricular backup pacing in patients with an implantable defibrillator: the Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) Trial.  JAMA. 2002;288(24):3115-312312495391PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Wilkoff BL, Kudenchuk PJ, Buxton AE,  et al; DAVID II Investigators.  The DAVID (Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator) II trial.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(10):872-88019264245PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Olshansky B, Day JD, Moore S,  et al.  Is dual-chamber programming inferior to single-chamber programming in an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator? results of the INTRINSIC RV (Inhibition of Unnecessary RV Pacing With AVSH in ICDs) study.  Circulation. 2007;115(1):9-1617179021PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
The American College of Cardiology.  National Cardiovascular Data Registry. http://www.ncdr.com/webncdr/ICD/Default.aspx. Accessed January 9, 2012
17.
Hammill SC, Kremers MS, Kadish AH,  et al.  Review of the ICD Registry's third year, expansion to include lead data and pediatric ICD procedures, and role for measuring performance.  Heart Rhythm. 2009;6(9):1397-140119716099PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
 US Census, 2010. http://2010.census.gov/2010census/. Accessed February 15, 2012
19.
 The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. http://www.dartmouthatlas.org. Accessed January 9, 2012
20.
Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Stukel TA, Gottlieb DJ, Lucas FL, Pinder EL. The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending: part 1: the content, quality, and accessibility of care.  Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(4):273-28712585825PubMedGoogle Scholar
21.
Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Stukel TA, Gottlieb DJ, Lucas FL, Pinder EL. The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending: part 2: health outcomes and satisfaction with care.  Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(4):288-29812585826PubMedGoogle Scholar
22.
Sirovich B, Gallagher PM, Wennberg DE, Fisher ES. Discretionary decision making by primary care physicians and the cost of U.S. Health care.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(3):813-82318474975PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Curtis JP, Luebbert JJ, Wang Y,  et al.  Association of physician certification and outcomes among patients receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.  JAMA. 2009;301(16):1661-167019383957PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Al-Khatib SM, Hellkamp A, Curtis J,  et al.  Non-evidence-based ICD implantations in the United States.  JAMA. 2011;305(1):43-4921205965PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Larsen K, Petersen JH, Budtz-Jørgensen E, Endahl L. Interpreting parameters in the logistic regression model with random effects.  Biometrics. 2000;56(3):909-91410985236PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Chan PS, Nichol G, Krumholz HM, Spertus JA, Nallamothu BK.American Heart Association National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (NRCPR) Investigators.  Hospital variation in time to defibrillation after in-hospital cardiac arrest.  Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(14):1265-127319636027PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Ricci RP, Quesada A, Almendral J,  et al; DATAS study Investigators.  Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators reduce clinical adverse eventsrelated to atrial fibrillation when compared with single-chamber defibrillators: a subanalysis of the DATAS trial.  Europace. 2009;11(5):587-59319401341PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Bach PB. A map to bad policy: hospital efficiency measures in the Dartmouth Atlas.  N Engl J Med. 2010;362(7):569-57420164483PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Ong MK, Mangione CM, Romano PS,  et al.  Looking forward, looking back: assessing variations in hospital resource use and outcomes for elderly patients with heart failure.  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009;2(6):548-55720031892PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Anderson HV. Regional variation: only moderately interesting: a word of caution.  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010;3(1):6-720123665PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Sutherland JM, Fisher ES, Skinner JS. Getting past denial: the high cost of health care in the United States.  N Engl J Med. 2009;361(13):1227-123019741220PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Matlock DD, Kutner JS, Emsermann CB,  et al.  Regional variations in physicians' attitudes and recommendations surrounding implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.  J Card Fail. 2011;17(4):318-32421440870PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Godin G, Bélanger-Gravel A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Healthcare professionals' intentions and behaviours: a systematic review of studies based on social cognitive theories.  Implement Sci. 2008;3(1):3618631386PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations.  Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581-62915595944PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Rogers E. Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY: Free Press; 1962
36.
Barnato AE, Bost JE, Farrell MH,  et al.  Relationship between staff perceptions of hospital norms and hospital-level end-of-life treatment intensity.  J Palliat Med. 2007;10(5):1093-110017985966PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Lin CY, Farrell MH, Lave JR, Angus DC, Barnato AE. Organizational determinants of hospital end-of-life treatment intensity.  Med Care. 2009;47(5):524-53019318999PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Goldberger Z, Elbel B, McPherson CA, Paltiel AD, Lampert R. Cost advantage of dual-chamber versus single-chamber cardioverter-defibrillator implantation.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(5):850-85716139136PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Dobrzynski H, Boyett MR, Anderson RH. New insights into pacemaker activity: promoting understanding of sick sinus syndrome.  Circulation. 2007;115(14):1921-193217420362PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Groeneveld PW, Laufer SB, Garber AM. Technology diffusion, hospital variation, and racial disparities among elderly Medicare beneficiaries: 1989-2000.  Med Care. 2005;43(4):320-32915778635PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Lucas FL, Sirovich BE, Gallagher PM, Siewers AE, Wennberg DE. Variation in cardiologists' propensity to test and treat: is it associated with regional variation in utilization?  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010;3(3):253-26020388874PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
 Critics question study cited in health debate. Abelson R, Harris G. New York Times. June 2, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/business/03dartmouth.html?pagewanted=all. Accessed February 15, 2012
43.
Maynard A. The powers and pitfalls of payment for performance.  Health Econ. 2012;21(1):3-12Google ScholarCrossref
44.
Anthony DL, Herndon MB, Gallagher PM,  et al.  How much do patients' preferences contribute to resource use?  Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(3):864-87319414899PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Fowler FJ Jr, Gallagher PM, Anthony DL, Larsen K, Skinner JS. Relationship between regional per capita Medicare expenditures and patient perceptions of quality of care.  JAMA. 2008;299(20):2406-241218505950PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
Apr 23, 2012

Variation in Use of Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Results From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, Aurora (Drs Matlock, Peterson, Varosy, and Masoudi); Colorado Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Group, Denver (Drs Matlock, Peterson, Varosy, and Masoudi); Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver (Drs Matlock, Peterson, and Masoudi); Department of Medicine, Denver Health Medical Center, Denver (Dr Peterson); Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut (Mr Wang and Dr Curtis); Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and the Boston VA Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts (Dr Reynolds); and The Medical Service, Section of Cardiology, Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver (Dr Varosy).

Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(8):634-641. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.394
Abstract

Background Among patients without an indication for a pacemaker, current evidence is inconclusive whether a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is superior to a single-chamber ICD. The current use of dual-chamber ICDs is not well characterized.

Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study exploring hospital-level variation in the use of dual-chamber ICDs across the United States. Patients receiving a primary prevention ICD from 2006 through 2009 without a documented indication for a pacemaker were included. Multivariate hierarchical logistic regression was used to explore patient, health care provider, and physician factors related to the use of a dual-chamber device.

Results Dual-chamber devices were implanted in 58% of the 87 115 patients without a pacing indication among 1293 hospitals, with hospital rates ranging from 0% in 33 centers to 100% in 109 centers. In multivariate analysis, geographic region was a strong independent predictor of dual-chamber device use, ranging from 36.4% in New England (reference region) to 66.4% in the Pacific region (odds ratio [OR], 5.25; 95% CI, 3.35-8.21). Hospital clustering was assessed using a median OR which was 3.96, meaning that 2 identical patients at different hospitals would have nearly a 4-fold difference in their chance of receiving a dual-chamber ICD.

Conclusions Use of dual-chamber ICDs for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death among patients without an indication for permanent pacing varies markedly at the hospital level in the United States. This is a clear example of how practice can vary independent of patient factors.

×