Affiliation:
1. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases University of Toledo Toledo Ohio USA
2. University of Toledo College of Medicine Toledo Ohio USA
3. Department of Internal Medicine Department Lahey Clinic Burlington Massachusetts USA
4. Heart and Vascular Institute MetroHealth Medical Center/Case Western Reserve University Cleveland Ohio USA
5. Division of Cardiology University of Washington Seattle Washington USA
6. Hospital and Specialty Medicine VA Puget Sound Health Care System Seattle Washington USA
Abstract
AbstractBackgroundThe annual incidence of sudden cardiac death is over 300,000 in the United States (US). Historically, inpatient implantation of secondary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has been variable and subject to healthcare disparities.ObjectiveTo evaluate contemporary practice trends of inpatient secondary prevention ICD implants within the US on the basis of race, sex, and socioeconomic status (SES).MethodsThe study is a retrospective analysis of the National Inpatient Sample from 2016 to 2020 of adult discharges with a primary diagnosis of ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular flutter, and fibrillation (VF). Adjusted ICD implantation rates based on race, sex, and SES and associated temporal trends were calculated using multivariate regression.ResultsA total of 193,600 primary VT/VF discharges in the NIS were included in the cohort, of which 57,895 (29.9%) had ICD placement. There was a significant racial and ethnic disparity in ICD placement for Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American patients as compared to White patients; adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.86 [p < .01], 0.90 [p = .03], 0.81[p < .01], 0.45 [p < .01], respectively. Female patients were also less likely to receive an ICD compared to male patients (aOR: 0.75, p < .01). Disparities in ICD placement remained stable over the study period (ptrend ≥ .05 in all races, both sexes and income categories).ConclusionRacial, sex, and SES disparities persisted for secondary prevention ICD implants in the US. An investigation into contributing factors and subsequent approaches are needed to address the modifiable causes of disparities in ICD implantation as these trends have not improved compared to historic data.