You don't need to be signed in to read BMJ Blogs, but you can register here to receive updates about other BMJ products and services via our site.

Many US ICD implants not evidence based

6 Jan, 11 | by Alistair Lindsay

For patients with severe systolic heart failure, several randomised trials have shown the ability of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) devices to prevent sudden cardiac death.  However, current US guidelines recommend against ICD insertion within 3 months of an initial heart-failure diagnosis, or within forty days of a myocardial infarction.

This retrospective cohort study of cases submitted to the National Cardiovascular Data Registry-ICD Registry between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2009 looked at data from 111 707 patients.  25145 (22.5%) of patients received non-evidence-based ICD implants.  Patients who received a non-evidence-based ICD had a higher risk of in-hospital death (0.57% vs 0.18%, P<0.001) and any post-procedural complication (3.23% vs 2.41%, P<0.001) than patients who received an ICD appropriately.  Electrophysiologists were less likely to implant an ICD inappropriately than other cardiologists or thoracic surgeons.

Conclusions

Almost a quarter of ICD implants performed in the USA are inappropriate according to current guidelines; in most cases this was due to inappropriate timing of insertion.

  • Khatib SM, Hellkamp A, Curtis J, et al. Non-evidence-based ICD implantations in the United States. JAMA 2011; 305:43-49.
  • Kadish A and Goldberger J. Selecting patients for ICD implantation: Are clinicians choosing appropriately? JAMA 2011; 305:91-92.
By submitting your comment you agree to adhere to these terms and conditions
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

Latest from Heart

Latest from Heart

Cardiology Masterclasses

Cardiology Masterclasses