Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare single- versus dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation and complication rates in a large, real-world population. Background: The majority of patients enrolled in ICD efficacy trials received single-chamber devices. Although dual-chamber ICDs offer theoretical advantages over single-chamber defibrillators, the clinical superiority of dual-chamber models has not been conclusively proven, and they may increase complications. Methods: The National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry was used to examine the association between baseline characteristics and device selection in 104,049 patients receiving single- and dual-chamber ICDs between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007. A longitudinal cohort design was then used to determine in-hospital complication rates. Results: Dual-chamber devices were implanted in 64,489 patients (62%). Adverse events were more frequent with dual-chamber than with single-chamber device implantation (3.17% vs. 2.11%, p < 0.001), as was the rate of in-hospital mortality (0.40% vs. 0.23%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for demographics, medical comorbidities, diagnostic test data, and ICD indication, the odds of any complication (odds ratio: 1.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.28 to 1.52; p < 0.001) and in-hospital mortality (odds ratio: 1.45; 95% confidence interval: 1.20 to 1.74; p < 0.001) were increased with dual-chamber versus single-chamber ICD implantation. Conclusions: In this large, multicenter cohort of patients, dual-chamber ICD use was common. Dual-chamber device implantation was associated with increases in periprocedural complications and in-hospital mortality compared with single-chamber defibrillator selection.
- dual-chamber ICD
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine