Association of Single- vs Dual-Chamber ICDs With Mortality, Readmissions, and Complications Among Patients Receiving an ICD for Primary Prevention

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

doi:10.1001/jama.2013.4982

Cited by 112 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have used ICD-9 codes and administrative databases, including MedPAR and the National Hospital Discharge Survey, to look at CIED infections. 1,2,4,6,41,42 As noted by other investigators, 2,41 although the practice of coding for complications of CIEDs may be subject to bias, it is more likely that there is undercoding versus overcoding, and it is likely that any undercoding would be random and not prone to bias in any 1 direction. Undercoding would also lead to an underestimation of the true risk of infection.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Rates of and Factors Associated With Infection in 200 909 Medicare Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implants

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background-The rate of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) infections has been increasing faster than that of implantation. We sought to determine the rate and predictors of ICD infection in a large cohort of Medicare patients. Methods and Results-Cases submitted to the ICD Registry from 2006 to 2009 were matched to Medicare fee-for-service claims data using indirect patient identifiers. ICD infections occurring within 6 months of hospital discharge after implantation were identified by ICD-9 codes. Logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with risk of ICD infection.

show abstract

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Rates of and Factors Associated With Infection in 200 909 Medicare Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implants

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most patients enrolled into ICD studies were implanted with single-lead devices [9,10]. However, real life data showed that many patients, although they do not need atrial pacing, are implanted with additional atrial lead which increases specificity in arrhythmia diagnosis, but on the other hand, may be associated with significant increase in the rate of periprocedural complications [11,12] and mortality [12]. There are some studies showing that data obtained from atrial lead may reduce rates of inappropriate therapy although most clinical trials provided mixed results in this area [13][14][15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of echocardiographic and radiographic characteristics on atrial sensing amplitude in patients with Linox Smart S DX defibrillation leads

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(PP, periprocedural), predischarge (IHFU, in-hospital follow-up) (3.15 vs. 1.2 mV, p = 0.045, 7.53 vs. 3.8 mV, p < 0.001 and 5.63 vs. 2.44 mV, p = 0.017 for PP measurements, IHFU and AFU, respectively). There was a significant negative correlation between AS-PP and short RA dimension (RADs) (r = -0.56, p = 0.02), AS-IHFU and RA area (RAA) (r = -0.45, p < 0.05), AS-AFU and long RA dimension (RADl) (r = -0.46; p = 0.02), 48, p = 0.02), p < 0.01). There was no relationship between AS and other right heart dimensions. Conclusions: Larger RA size and low sensing dipole location were associated with lower AS amplitude in single-lead dual chamber ICD. (Cardiol J 2017; 24, 6: 671-676) and 3-6 months after the procedure (AFU, ambulatory follow-up). Results were related to atrial dipole position in the right atrium (RA) on the basis of chest X-ray examination as well as right heart dimensions at echocardiography. Results: Twenty-four patients were included into final analysis. In 14 (58.3%) patients, sensing dipole was located in regions 1 and 2 of the RA. AS amplitude was greater in regions 1 and 2 when compared to other locations

show abstract

“…Dualchamber ICDs are more expensive, implantation is associated with a higher risk of significant complications and with current device technology and programming recommendations the evidence suggesting that dual-chamber ICDs improve detection of atrial tachyarrhythmias and reduce inappropriate shock therapy or provide other substantial clinical benefits is not compelling. 13,[19][20][21][22][23] Thus, it is hard to justify implanting dualchamber ICDs in patients without a bradycardia indication for pacing. A recent Heart Rhythm Society consensus statement recommends a dual-chamber ICD for patients with a need for pacing because of sinus node disease, high-grade AV block, and drug-induced bradycardia and indicates that dual-chamber ICDs could be considered in patients with bradycardiainduced or pause-dependent ventricular tachyarrhythmias or in patients with documented atrial tachyarrhythmias.…”

Section: Optimizing Rv and Biv Pacing 969mentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal Pacing for Right Ventricular and Biventricular Devices

Gillis

2014

Circ: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Association of Single- vs Dual-Chamber ICDs With Mortality, Readmissions, and Complications Among Patients Receiving an ICD for Primary Prevention

Cited by 112 publications

References 31 publications

Rates of and Factors Associated With Infection in 200 909 Medicare Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implants

Rates of and Factors Associated With Infection in 200 909 Medicare Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implants

Influence of echocardiographic and radiographic characteristics on atrial sensing amplitude in patients with Linox Smart S DX defibrillation leads

Optimal Pacing for Right Ventricular and Biventricular Devices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About