Appropriateness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator device implants in the United States

The appropriate use criteria (AUCs) are a diverse group of indications aimed to better evaluate the benefits of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy. The purpose of this study was to quantify the proportion of ICD and cardiac resynchronization therapy wi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Heart rhythm 2024-04, Vol.21 (4), p.397-407
Hauptverfasser: Yousuf, Omair K., Kennedy, Kevin, Russo, Andrea, Varosy, Paul, Lindsay, Bruce D., Steinberg, Benjamin, Atwater, Brett D., Calkins, Hugh, Spertus, John A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 407
container_issue 4
container_start_page 397
container_title Heart rhythm
container_volume 21
creator Yousuf, Omair K.
Kennedy, Kevin
Russo, Andrea
Varosy, Paul
Lindsay, Bruce D.
Steinberg, Benjamin
Atwater, Brett D.
Calkins, Hugh
Spertus, John A.
description The appropriate use criteria (AUCs) are a diverse group of indications aimed to better evaluate the benefits of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy. The purpose of this study was to quantify the proportion of ICD and cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) implants as appropriate, may be appropriate (MA), or rarely appropriate (RA) on the basis of the AUC guidelines. This is a multicenter retrospective study of patients within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry undergoing ICD implantation between April 2018 and March 2019 at >1500 US hospitals. The appropriateness of ICD implants was adjudicated using the AUC. Of 309,318 ICDs, 241,438 were primary prevention implants (78.1%) and 67,880 secondary prevention implants (21.9%); 243,532 (79%) were mappable to the AUC. For primary prevention, 185,431 ICDs (96.4%) were appropriate, 5660 (2.9%) MA, and 1205 (0.6%) RA. For secondary prevention, 47,498 ICDs (92.7%) were appropriate, 2581 (5%) MA, and 1157 (2.3%) RA. A significant number of RA devices were implanted in patients with New York Heart Association class IV heart failure who were ineligible for advanced therapies (53.9%) and those with myocardial infarction within 40 days (18.1%). The appropriateness of the pacing lead was more variable, with 48,470 dual-chamber ICD implants (62%) being classified as appropriate, 29,209 (37.4%) MA, and 448 (0.6%) RA. Among CRT-D implants, 63,848 (82.2%) were appropriate, 9900 (12.7%) MA, and 3940 (5.1%) RA for left ventricular pacing. A total of 99,754 implants were deemed appropriate but excluded from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services National Coverage Determination. More than 92% of hospitals had an RA implant rate of
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.12.005
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2904571740</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1547527123030011</els_id><sourcerecordid>2904571740</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c274t-f85198e62f95963e22d7bbba92f7852798f4903285a1015777b30e46f6fff4013</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kLtOwzAUhi0EoqXwBEgoI0uCr3EyMFQVN6kSA3TFcpJj1VVu2G4l3h6XUkamc4bvXP4PoWuCM4JJfrfJ1i6su4xiyjJCM4zFCZoSIfKUFZKc7nsuU0ElmaAL7zcY0zLH7BxNWEEow5xP0cd8HN0wOqsD9OB9MpjEdmOr-6CrFpJau8YOO3ABXNqAsZWzbavD4JIGdraGI-0T2ydhDcmqtwGa5C3Ejf4SnRnderj6rTO0enx4Xzyny9enl8V8mdZU8pCaQpCygJyaUpQ5A0obWVWVLqmRRQxQFoaXmNFC6BhdSCkrhoHnJjfGcEzYDN0e9sYwn1vwQXXW1xA_7WHYekVLzIUkkuOIsgNau8F7B0bF9J12X4pgtRerNupHrNqLVYSqKDZO3fwe2FYdNH8zR5MRuD8AEGPuLDjlawt9DY11UAfVDPbfA9-6aos_</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2904571740</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Appropriateness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator device implants in the United States</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Yousuf, Omair K. ; Kennedy, Kevin ; Russo, Andrea ; Varosy, Paul ; Lindsay, Bruce D. ; Steinberg, Benjamin ; Atwater, Brett D. ; Calkins, Hugh ; Spertus, John A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Yousuf, Omair K. ; Kennedy, Kevin ; Russo, Andrea ; Varosy, Paul ; Lindsay, Bruce D. ; Steinberg, Benjamin ; Atwater, Brett D. ; Calkins, Hugh ; Spertus, John A.</creatorcontrib><description>The appropriate use criteria (AUCs) are a diverse group of indications aimed to better evaluate the benefits of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy. The purpose of this study was to quantify the proportion of ICD and cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) implants as appropriate, may be appropriate (MA), or rarely appropriate (RA) on the basis of the AUC guidelines. This is a multicenter retrospective study of patients within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry undergoing ICD implantation between April 2018 and March 2019 at &gt;1500 US hospitals. The appropriateness of ICD implants was adjudicated using the AUC. Of 309,318 ICDs, 241,438 were primary prevention implants (78.1%) and 67,880 secondary prevention implants (21.9%); 243,532 (79%) were mappable to the AUC. For primary prevention, 185,431 ICDs (96.4%) were appropriate, 5660 (2.9%) MA, and 1205 (0.6%) RA. For secondary prevention, 47,498 ICDs (92.7%) were appropriate, 2581 (5%) MA, and 1157 (2.3%) RA. A significant number of RA devices were implanted in patients with New York Heart Association class IV heart failure who were ineligible for advanced therapies (53.9%) and those with myocardial infarction within 40 days (18.1%). The appropriateness of the pacing lead was more variable, with 48,470 dual-chamber ICD implants (62%) being classified as appropriate, 29,209 (37.4%) MA, and 448 (0.6%) RA. Among CRT-D implants, 63,848 (82.2%) were appropriate, 9900 (12.7%) MA, and 3940 (5.1%) RA for left ventricular pacing. A total of 99,754 implants were deemed appropriate but excluded from Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services National Coverage Determination. More than 92% of hospitals had an RA implant rate of &lt;4%. In this large national registry, 95% of mappable ICD and CRT-D implants were considered appropriate, with &lt;2% of RA implants. Nearly 100,000 appropriate implants are excluded by Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services National Coverage Determination.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1547-5271</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1556-3871</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1556-3871</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.12.005</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38123044</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; American College of Cardiology ; Appropriateness ; Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy ; Defibrillators, Implantable ; Heart Failure - diagnosis ; Heart Failure - therapy ; Humans ; Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator ; Medicare ; National Cardiovascular Data Registry ; Outcomes ; Pacemaker, Artificial ; Primary prevention ; Registries ; Retrospective Studies ; Secondary prevention ; Sudden cardiac death ; United States - epidemiology</subject><ispartof>Heart rhythm, 2024-04, Vol.21 (4), p.397-407</ispartof><rights>2024</rights><rights>Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c274t-f85198e62f95963e22d7bbba92f7852798f4903285a1015777b30e46f6fff4013</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c274t-f85198e62f95963e22d7bbba92f7852798f4903285a1015777b30e46f6fff4013</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1969-0983</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.12.005$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38123044$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yousuf, Omair K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kennedy, Kevin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russo, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Varosy, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindsay, Bruce D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steinberg, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atwater, Brett D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Calkins, Hugh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spertus, John A.</creatorcontrib><title>Appropriateness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator device implants in the United States</title><title>Heart rhythm</title><addtitle>Heart Rhythm</addtitle><description>The appropriate use criteria (AUCs) are a diverse group of indications aimed to better evaluate the benefits of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy. The purpose of this study was to quantify the proportion of ICD and cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) implants as appropriate, may be appropriate (MA), or rarely appropriate (RA) on the basis of the AUC guidelines. This is a multicenter retrospective study of patients within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry undergoing ICD implantation between April 2018 and March 2019 at &gt;1500 US hospitals. The appropriateness of ICD implants was adjudicated using the AUC. Of 309,318 ICDs, 241,438 were primary prevention implants (78.1%) and 67,880 secondary prevention implants (21.9%); 243,532 (79%) were mappable to the AUC. For primary prevention, 185,431 ICDs (96.4%) were appropriate, 5660 (2.9%) MA, and 1205 (0.6%) RA. For secondary prevention, 47,498 ICDs (92.7%) were appropriate, 2581 (5%) MA, and 1157 (2.3%) RA. A significant number of RA devices were implanted in patients with New York Heart Association class IV heart failure who were ineligible for advanced therapies (53.9%) and those with myocardial infarction within 40 days (18.1%). The appropriateness of the pacing lead was more variable, with 48,470 dual-chamber ICD implants (62%) being classified as appropriate, 29,209 (37.4%) MA, and 448 (0.6%) RA. Among CRT-D implants, 63,848 (82.2%) were appropriate, 9900 (12.7%) MA, and 3940 (5.1%) RA for left ventricular pacing. A total of 99,754 implants were deemed appropriate but excluded from Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services National Coverage Determination. More than 92% of hospitals had an RA implant rate of &lt;4%. In this large national registry, 95% of mappable ICD and CRT-D implants were considered appropriate, with &lt;2% of RA implants. Nearly 100,000 appropriate implants are excluded by Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services National Coverage Determination.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>American College of Cardiology</subject><subject>Appropriateness</subject><subject>Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy</subject><subject>Defibrillators, Implantable</subject><subject>Heart Failure - diagnosis</subject><subject>Heart Failure - therapy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator</subject><subject>Medicare</subject><subject>National Cardiovascular Data Registry</subject><subject>Outcomes</subject><subject>Pacemaker, Artificial</subject><subject>Primary prevention</subject><subject>Registries</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Secondary prevention</subject><subject>Sudden cardiac death</subject><subject>United States - epidemiology</subject><issn>1547-5271</issn><issn>1556-3871</issn><issn>1556-3871</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kLtOwzAUhi0EoqXwBEgoI0uCr3EyMFQVN6kSA3TFcpJj1VVu2G4l3h6XUkamc4bvXP4PoWuCM4JJfrfJ1i6su4xiyjJCM4zFCZoSIfKUFZKc7nsuU0ElmaAL7zcY0zLH7BxNWEEow5xP0cd8HN0wOqsD9OB9MpjEdmOr-6CrFpJau8YOO3ABXNqAsZWzbavD4JIGdraGI-0T2ydhDcmqtwGa5C3Ejf4SnRnderj6rTO0enx4Xzyny9enl8V8mdZU8pCaQpCygJyaUpQ5A0obWVWVLqmRRQxQFoaXmNFC6BhdSCkrhoHnJjfGcEzYDN0e9sYwn1vwQXXW1xA_7WHYekVLzIUkkuOIsgNau8F7B0bF9J12X4pgtRerNupHrNqLVYSqKDZO3fwe2FYdNH8zR5MRuD8AEGPuLDjlawt9DY11UAfVDPbfA9-6aos_</recordid><startdate>202404</startdate><enddate>202404</enddate><creator>Yousuf, Omair K.</creator><creator>Kennedy, Kevin</creator><creator>Russo, Andrea</creator><creator>Varosy, Paul</creator><creator>Lindsay, Bruce D.</creator><creator>Steinberg, Benjamin</creator><creator>Atwater, Brett D.</creator><creator>Calkins, Hugh</creator><creator>Spertus, John A.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1969-0983</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202404</creationdate><title>Appropriateness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator device implants in the United States</title><author>Yousuf, Omair K. ; Kennedy, Kevin ; Russo, Andrea ; Varosy, Paul ; Lindsay, Bruce D. ; Steinberg, Benjamin ; Atwater, Brett D. ; Calkins, Hugh ; Spertus, John A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c274t-f85198e62f95963e22d7bbba92f7852798f4903285a1015777b30e46f6fff4013</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>American College of Cardiology</topic><topic>Appropriateness</topic><topic>Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy</topic><topic>Defibrillators, Implantable</topic><topic>Heart Failure - diagnosis</topic><topic>Heart Failure - therapy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator</topic><topic>Medicare</topic><topic>National Cardiovascular Data Registry</topic><topic>Outcomes</topic><topic>Pacemaker, Artificial</topic><topic>Primary prevention</topic><topic>Registries</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Secondary prevention</topic><topic>Sudden cardiac death</topic><topic>United States - epidemiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yousuf, Omair K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kennedy, Kevin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russo, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Varosy, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindsay, Bruce D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steinberg, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atwater, Brett D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Calkins, Hugh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spertus, John A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Heart rhythm</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yousuf, Omair K.</au><au>Kennedy, Kevin</au><au>Russo, Andrea</au><au>Varosy, Paul</au><au>Lindsay, Bruce D.</au><au>Steinberg, Benjamin</au><au>Atwater, Brett D.</au><au>Calkins, Hugh</au><au>Spertus, John A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Appropriateness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator device implants in the United States</atitle><jtitle>Heart rhythm</jtitle><addtitle>Heart Rhythm</addtitle><date>2024-04</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>397</spage><epage>407</epage><pages>397-407</pages><issn>1547-5271</issn><issn>1556-3871</issn><eissn>1556-3871</eissn><abstract>The appropriate use criteria (AUCs) are a diverse group of indications aimed to better evaluate the benefits of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy. The purpose of this study was to quantify the proportion of ICD and cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) implants as appropriate, may be appropriate (MA), or rarely appropriate (RA) on the basis of the AUC guidelines. This is a multicenter retrospective study of patients within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry undergoing ICD implantation between April 2018 and March 2019 at &gt;1500 US hospitals. The appropriateness of ICD implants was adjudicated using the AUC. Of 309,318 ICDs, 241,438 were primary prevention implants (78.1%) and 67,880 secondary prevention implants (21.9%); 243,532 (79%) were mappable to the AUC. For primary prevention, 185,431 ICDs (96.4%) were appropriate, 5660 (2.9%) MA, and 1205 (0.6%) RA. For secondary prevention, 47,498 ICDs (92.7%) were appropriate, 2581 (5%) MA, and 1157 (2.3%) RA. A significant number of RA devices were implanted in patients with New York Heart Association class IV heart failure who were ineligible for advanced therapies (53.9%) and those with myocardial infarction within 40 days (18.1%). The appropriateness of the pacing lead was more variable, with 48,470 dual-chamber ICD implants (62%) being classified as appropriate, 29,209 (37.4%) MA, and 448 (0.6%) RA. Among CRT-D implants, 63,848 (82.2%) were appropriate, 9900 (12.7%) MA, and 3940 (5.1%) RA for left ventricular pacing. A total of 99,754 implants were deemed appropriate but excluded from Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services National Coverage Determination. More than 92% of hospitals had an RA implant rate of &lt;4%. In this large national registry, 95% of mappable ICD and CRT-D implants were considered appropriate, with &lt;2% of RA implants. Nearly 100,000 appropriate implants are excluded by Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services National Coverage Determination.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>38123044</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.12.005</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1969-0983</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1547-5271
ispartof Heart rhythm, 2024-04, Vol.21 (4), p.397-407
issn 1547-5271
1556-3871
1556-3871
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2904571740
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Aged
American College of Cardiology
Appropriateness
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
Defibrillators, Implantable
Heart Failure - diagnosis
Heart Failure - therapy
Humans
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
Medicare
National Cardiovascular Data Registry
Outcomes
Pacemaker, Artificial
Primary prevention
Registries
Retrospective Studies
Secondary prevention
Sudden cardiac death
United States - epidemiology
title Appropriateness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator device implants in the United States
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T08%3A25%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Appropriateness%20of%20implantable%20cardioverter-defibrillator%20device%20implants%20in%20the%20United%20States&rft.jtitle=Heart%20rhythm&rft.au=Yousuf,%20Omair%20K.&rft.date=2024-04&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=397&rft.epage=407&rft.pages=397-407&rft.issn=1547-5271&rft.eissn=1556-3871&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.12.005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2904571740%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2904571740&rft_id=info:pmid/38123044&rft_els_id=S1547527123030011&rfr_iscdi=true