Single‐ Versus Dual‐Chamber Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillator for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death in the United States

Author:

Margolis Gilad1,Hamuda Nashed1,Kobo Ofer1,Elbaz Greener Gabby23,Amir Offer23,Homoud Munther4,Madias Christopher4,Heist Edwin Kevin5,Ruskin Jeremy N.5ORCID,Kazatsker Mark1,Roguin Ariel1ORCID,Leshem Eran1ORCID,Rozen Guy45ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Hillel Yaffe Medical Center The Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine Technion Haifa Israel

2. Department of Cardiology, Hadassah Medical Center Jerusalem Israel

3. Faculty of Medicine Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jerusalem Israel

4. Cardiovascular Center, Tufts Medical Center Tufts University School of Medicine Boston MA USA

5. Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, Massachusetts General Hospital Harvard Medical School Boston MA USA

Abstract

Background Routine addition of an atrial lead during an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, in patients without pacing indications, was not shown beneficial in contemporary studies. We aimed to investigate the use and safety of single‐ versus dual‐chamber ICD implantations in these patients. Methods and Results Using the National Inpatient Sample database, we identified patients with no pacing indications who underwent primary‐prevention ICD implantation in the United States between 2015 and 2019. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, as well as in‐hospital complications, were analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of in‐hospital complications. An estimated total of 15 940 patients, underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death during the study period, 8860 (55.6%) received a dual‐chamber ICD. The mean age was 64 years, and 66% were men. In‐hospital complication rates in the dual‐chamber ICD and single‐chamber ICD group were 12.8% and 10.7%, respectively ( P <0.001), driven by increased rates of pneumothorax/hemothorax (4.6% versus 3.4%; P <0.001) and lead dislodgement (3.6% versus 2.3%; P <0.001) in the dual‐chamber ICD group. Multivariable analyses confirmed atrial lead addition as an independent predictor for “any complications” (odds ratio [OR], 1.1 [95% CI, 1.0–1.2]), for pneumo/hemothorax (odds ratio, 1.1 [95% CI, 1.0–1.4]), and for lead dislodgement (odds ratio, 1.3 [95% CI, 1.1–1.6]). Conclusions Despite lack of evidence for clinical benefit, dual‐chamber ICDs are implanted for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in a majority of patients who do not have pacing indication. This practice is associated with increased risk of periprocedural complications. Avoidance of routine implantation of atrial leads will likely improve safety outcomes.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3