Association of single- vs dual-chamber ICDs with mortality, readmissions, and complications among patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention

Pamela N. Peterson, Paul D. Varosy, Paul A. Heidenreich, Yongfei Wang, Thomas A. Dewland, Jeptha P. Curtis, Alan S. Go, Robert T. Greenlee, David J. Magid, Sharon Lise T. Normand, Frederick A. Masoudi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

69 Scopus citations

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2025-2034
Number of pages10
JournalJAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association
Volume309
Issue number19
DOIs
StatePublished - May 15 2013

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Association of single- vs dual-chamber ICDs with mortality, readmissions, and complications among patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Peterson, P. N., Varosy, P. D., Heidenreich, P. A., Wang, Y., Dewland, T. A., Curtis, J. P., Go, A. S., Greenlee, R. T., Magid, D. J., Normand, S. L. T., & Masoudi, F. A. (2013). Association of single- vs dual-chamber ICDs with mortality, readmissions, and complications among patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention. JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, 309(19), 2025-2034. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.4982