Search

Background: Despite strong guideline recommendations for cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) in select patients, this therapy is underutilized with substantial variation among hospitals, and the association of this variation with outcomes is unknown., Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess whether facility variation in CRT-D utilization is associated with differences in hospital-level outcomes., Methods: We linked Medicare claims data with the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's ICD Registry from 2010 to 2015. We calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient to quantify the degree of variation in patient-level CRT use that can be explained by interfacility variation on a hospital level. To quantify the degree of hospital variation in patient-level outcomes (all-cause mortality, readmissions, and cardiac readmissions) that can be attributed to variations in CRT-D use, we utilized multilevel modeling., Results: The study included 30,134 patients across 1377 hospitals. The median rate of CRT-D implantation in those meeting guideline indications was 89%, but there was a wide variation across hospitals. After adjustment, most of the variation (74%) in hospital rates of CRT-D utilization was attributable to the hospital in which the patient was treated. Differences in hospital CRT-D utilization was associated with 8.76%, 5.26%, and 4.71% of differences in hospital mortality, readmissions, and cardiac readmission rates, respectively (P < .001 for all outcomes)., Conclusion: There is a wide variation in the use of CRT-D across hospitals that was not explained by case mix. Hospital-level variation in CRT-D utilization was associated with clinically significant differences in outcomes. A measure of CRT-D utilization in eligible patients may serve as a useful metric for quality improvement efforts., (Copyright © 2023 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background As patients derive variable benefit from generator changes (GCs) of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) with an original primary prevention (PP) indication, better predictors of outcomes are needed. Methods and Results In the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry, patients undergoing GCs of initial non-cardiac resynchronization therapy PP ICDs in 2012 to 2016, predictors of post-GC survival and survival benefit versus control heart failure patients without ICDs were assessed. These included predicted annual mortality based on the Seattle Heart Failure Model, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >35%, and the probability that a patient's death would be arrhythmic (proportional risk of arrhythmic death [PRAD]). In 40 933 patients undergoing GCs of initial noncardiac resynchronization therapy PP ICDs (age 67.7±12.0 years, 24.5% women, 34.1% with LVEF >35%), Seattle Heart Failure Model-predicted annual mortality had the greatest effect size for decreased post-GC survival ( P <0.0001). Patients undergoing GCs of initial noncardiac resynchronization therapy PP ICDs with LVEF >35% had a lower Seattle Heart Failure Model-adjusted survival versus 23 472 control heart failure patients without ICDs (model interaction hazard ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.11-1.31]). In patients undergoing GCs of initial noncardiac resynchonization therapy PP ICDs with LVEF ≤35%, the model indicated worse survival versus controls in the 21% of patients with a PRAD <43% and improved survival in the 10% with PRAD >65%. The association of the PRAD with survival benefit or harm was similar in patients with or without pre-GC ICD therapies. Conclusions Patients who received replacement of an ICD originally implanted for primary prevention and had at the time of GC either LVEF >35% alone or both LVEF ≤35% and PRAD <43% had worse survival versus controls without ICDs.

Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are recommended for patients with cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) with an indication for pacing, prior ventricular arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, or left ventricular ejection fraction <35%, but data on outcomes are limited., Methods: Using data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry between April 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015, we evaluated a propensity matched cohort of CS patients implanted with ICDs versus non-ischemic cardiomyopathies (NICM). We compared mortality using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models., Results: We identified 1,638 patients with CS and 8,190 propensity matched patients with NICM. The rate of death at 1 and 2 years was similar in patients with CS and patients with NICM (5.2% vs 5.4%, P = 0.75 and 9.0% vs 9.3%, P = 0.72, respectively). After adjusting for other covariates, patients with CS had similar mortality at 2 years after ICD implantations compared with NICM patients (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87-1.23). Among patients with CS, multivariable logistic regression identified 6 factors significantly associated with increased 2-year mortality: presence of heart failure (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.44-3.22), New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III heart failure (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.16-2.45), NYHA Class IV heart failure (HR 3.08, 95% CI 1.49-6.39), atrial fibrillation/flutter (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.17-2.35), chronic lung disease (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.17-2.29), creatinine >2.0 mg/dL (HR 4.07, 95% CI 2.63-6.30), and paced rhythm (HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.07-6.59)., Conclusion: Mortality following ICD implantation was similar in CS patients compared with propensity matched NICM patients. Presence of heart failure, NYHA class, atrial fibrillation/flutter, chronic lung disease, renal dysfunction, and paced rhythm at time of implantation were all predictors of increased 2-year mortality among CS patients with ICDs., Competing Interests: Declaration of interest Dr Minges and Yongfei Wang receive salary support for analytic services provided to the American College of Cardiology. Dr Lampert reports research grants from Medtronic and Abbott Laboratories/St. Jude Medical and serves on Medtronic advisory board and receives moderate honoraria. Dr Rosenfeld reports fellowship support and stock ownership for Abbott Laboratories and fellowship support from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr Jacoby reports being on the speaker's bureau and an advisory board for Alnylam and participating in ongoing funded research with Alnylam; receiving research grant from Myokardia; serving on an advisory board and steering committee for Myokardia; and receiving consulting fees from Abbott. Dr Curtis has a contract with the American College of Cardiology for his role as Senior Medical Officer, NCDR; receives salary support from the American College of Cardiology, NCDR; receives funding from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop and maintain performance measures that are used for public reporting; and holds equity interest in Medtronic. Dr Miller reports grants from Bracco and Eidos, grants and consulting for Alnylam and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr Freeman reports Consulting/Advisory Board fees from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Boston Scientific and Biosense Webster. He receives salary/research support from the American College of Cardiology, NCDR and the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. The remaining authors have no disclosures to report., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The subcutaneous (S-) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is an alternative to the transvenous (TV-) ICD that is increasingly implanted in younger patients; data on the safety and effectiveness of the S-ICD in older patients are lacking., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes among older patients who received an S- or TV-ICD., Methods: The authors compared S-ICD and single-chamber TV-ICD implants in Fee-For-Service Medicare beneficiaries using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. Outcomes were ascertained from Medicare claims data. Cox regression or competing-risk models (with TV-ICD as reference) with overlap weights were used to compare death and nonfatal outcomes (device reoperation, device removal for infection, device reoperation without infection, and cardiovascular admission), respectively. Recurrent all-cause readmissions were compared using Anderson-Gill models., Results: A total of 16,063 patients were studied (age 72.6 ± 5.9 years, 28.4% women, ejection fraction 28.3 ± 8.9%). Compared with TV-ICD patients (n = 15,072), S-ICD patients (n = 991, 6.2% overall) were more often Black, younger, and dialysis dependent and less likely to have history of atrial fibrillation or flutter. In adjusted analyses, there were no differences between device type and risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.020; 95% CI: 0.819-1.270), device reoperation (subdistribution [s] HR: 0.976; 95% CI: 0.645-1.479), device removal for infection (sHR: 0.614; 95% CI: 0.138-2.736), device reoperation without infection (sHR: 0.975; 95% CI: 0.632-1.506), cardiovascular readmission (sHR: 1.087; 95% CI: 0.912-1.295), or recurrent all-cause readmission (HR: 1.072; 95% CI: 0.990-1.161)., Conclusions: In a large representative national cohort of older patients undergoing ICD implantation, risk of death, device reoperation, device removal for infection, device reoperation without infection, and cardiovascular and all-cause readmission were similar among S- and TV-ICD recipients., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This research was supported by the American College of Cardiology’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR). The views expressed in this paper represent those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NCDR or its associated professional societies identified at CVQuality.ACC.org/NCDR. The ICD Registry is an initiative of the American College of Cardiology with partnering support from the Heart Rhythm Society. Dr Heist has received consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Pfizer; has received research grants from Abbott, Biotronik, and Pfizer; and has received honoraria from Medtronic, Biotronik, and Abbott. Dr Russo has received research support from Boston Scientific and Medilynx; and serves on research steering committees for Apple and Boston Scientific (no honoraria). Dr Ranasinghe has received research grants from the National Heart Foundation and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr Zeitler has received consulting fees from Medtronic Inc; and has received research grants from Boston Scientific and the NCDR. Dr Minges has received salary support from the American College of Cardiology for analytic services performed. Dr Freeman has received salary support from the American College of Cardiology, NCDR, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; has received consulting/advisory board fees (modest) from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pacemate, and Biosense Webster; has equity in Pacemate; has received research grants from the American Heart Association, NCDR, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Medtronic, Merit Medical, and Biosense Webster; and has received consulting fees from Abbott and AtriCure. Dr Curtis has received an institutional contract with the American College of Cardiology for his role as Senior Scientific Advisor of the NCDR; and has equity interest in Medtronic. Dr Al-Khatib has received research fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott; and has received speaker fees from Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Importance: Use of dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) systems among patients without a pacing indication is an example of low-value care given higher procedural risks, higher costs, and little evidence for benefit from an atrial lead. However, variation in the use of dual-chamber systems was present among patients without a pacing indication., Objective: To examine the temporal trends and hospital variation in use of single- and dual-chamber ICD implantation among patients without a pacing indication undergoing first-time ICD implantation., Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted using the US National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. A total of 266 182 patients undergoing initial implantation of a single- or dual-chamber transvenous ICD without a bradycardia pacing indication, class I or II cardiac resynchronization therapy indication, or history of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter were included. The study was conducted from April 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018; data analysis was performed from October 19, 2020, to January 5, 2022., Exposures: Implantation of a single- or dual-chamber ICD., Main Outcomes and Measures: Temporal trends among patients undergoing single- vs dual-chamber ICDs were determined using the Cochran-Armitage trend test, and hospital-level variation using adjusted hospital median odds ratios was examined., Results: A total of 266 182 patients (single-chamber ICD, 134 925; dual-chamber ICD, 131 257) were included in this analysis; mean (SD) age was 58.0 (14.0) years and 91 990 patients (68.2%) were men. The use of dual-chamber ICDs decreased from 64.7% (n = 15 694) in 2010 to 42.2% (n = 9762) in 2018 (P < .001). Adjusted for patient characteristics, the median hospital-level proportion of single-chamber ICDs increased from 42.9% (95% CI, 42.6%-45.0%) in 2010 to 50.0% (95% CI, 47.8%-51.0%) in 2018. The median odds ratio for the use of dual-chamber ICDs, adjusted for patient characteristics, was 1.6 (95% CI, 1.6-1.8) in 2010 and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.5-1.8) in 2018, indicating decreasing but persistent variation in use., Conclusions and Relevance: In this national study of US patients undergoing first-time ICD implantation without a clinical indication for an atrial lead, the use of dual-chamber devices decreased. However, institutional variability in the use of atrial leads persists, suggesting differences in individual or institutional cultures of real-world practice and opportunity to reduce this low-value practice.

Importance: Limited data exist regarding the characteristics of hospitals that do and do not participate in voluntary public reporting programs., Objective: To describe hospital characteristics and trends associated with early participation in the American College of Cardiology (ACC) voluntary reporting program for cardiac catheterization-percutaneous coronary intervention (CathPCI) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) registries., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed enrollment trends and characteristics of hospitals that did and did not participate in the ACC voluntary public reporting program. All hospitals reporting procedure data to the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI or ICD registries that were eligible for the public reporting program from July 2014 (ie, program launch date) to May 2017 were included. Stepwise logistic regression was used to identify hospital characteristics associated with voluntary participation. Enrollment trends were evaluated considering the date US News & World Report (USNWR) announced that it would credit participating hospitals. Data analysis was performed from March 2017 to January 2018., Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital characteristics and participation in the public reporting program., Results: By May 2017, 561 of 1747 eligible hospitals (32.1%) had opted to participate in the program. Enrollment increased from 240 to 376 hospitals (56.7%) 1 month after the USNWR announcement that program participation would be considered as a component of national hospital rankings. Compared with hospitals that did not enroll, program participants had increased median (IQR) procedural volumes for PCI (481 [280-764] procedures vs 332 [186-569] procedures; P < .001) and ICD (114 [56-220] procedures vs 62 [25-124] procedures; P < .001). Compared with nonparticipating hospitals, an increased mean (SD) proportion of participating hospitals adhered to composite discharge medications after PCI (0.96 [0.03] vs 0.92 [0.07]; P < .001) and ICD (0.88 [0.10] vs 0.81 [0.12]; P < .001). Hospital factors associated with enrollment included participation in 5 or more NCDR registries (odds ratio [OR],1.98; 95% CI, 1.24-3.19; P = .005), membership in a larger hospital system (ie, 3-20 hospitals vs ≤2 hospitals in the system: OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.65-3.17; P = .001), participation in an NCDR pilot public reporting program of PCI 30-day readmissions (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 2.19-3.91; P < .001), university affiliation (vs government affiliation: OR, 3.85, 95% CI, 1.03-14.29; P = .045; vs private affiliation: OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.35-3.57; P < .001), Midwest location (vs South: OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.06-2.08; P = .02), and increased comprehensive quality ranking (4 vs 1-2 performance stars in CathPCI: OR, 8.08; 95% CI, 5.07-12.87; P < .001; 4 vs 1 performance star in ICD: OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.48-3.44; P < .001) (C statistic = 0.829)., Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that one-third of eligible hospitals participated in the ACC voluntary public reporting program and that enrollment increased after the announcement that program participation would be considered by USNWR for hospital rankings. Several hospital characteristics, experience with public reporting, and quality of care were associated with increased odds of participation.

Background: The Department of Justice (DOJ) investigated implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) not meeting the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services National Coverage Determination (NCD) criteria, resulting in increased adherence to the NCD criteria. Trends of the specific reasons for patients not meeting the NCD criteria and in-hospital outcomes for those patients are not known., Methods and Results: We analyzed 300,151 primary-prevention ICDs from 2007-2015 at 1809 hospitals. We calculated the rates of in-hospital adverse events and the proportion of ICDs not meeting the 4 NCD criteria before and after the announcement of the DOJ investigation, stratified by whether hospitals paid settlements to the DOJ. Most reductions in the use of devices in patients not meeting NCD criteria were in patients with recently diagnosed heart failure (15.5%-6.8% for settled; 13.5%-7.3% for nonsettled) and who had had a recent myocardial infarction (8.4%-1.3% for settled; 7.4% to 1.5% for nonsettled). Adverse-event rates were significantly higher for ICDs not meeting NCD criteria (odds ratio 1.26 for settled; P < 0.001; 1.18 for nonsettled; P = 0.001)., Conclusions: After the investigation, there was a rapid reduction in the placement of ICDs in patients with recent acute myocardial infarction or recent diagnosis of heart failure. Patients who did not meet NCD criteria experienced more in-hospital adverse events and higher mortality rates., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with recent myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization and those with newly diagnosed or severe heart failure (HF) are considered non-evidence-based, as defined by pivotal randomized clinical trials. Although non-evidence-based ICDs have been associated previously with greater risk of in-hospital adverse events, longitudinal outcomes are not known. We used Medicare-linked data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's ICD Registry to identify patients discharged alive following first-time primary prevention ICD implantations performed between 2010 and 2013. We compared longitudinal outcomes, including all-cause mortality and all-cause hospital readmission among patients receiving non-evidence-based versus evidence-based ICDs, up to 4.75 years after implantation, using multivariable time-to-event analyses. Of 71,666 ICD implantations, 9,609 (13.4%) were classified as non-evidence-based. Compared to patients receiving evidence-based ICDs, non-evidence-based ICD recipients had greater mortality risk at 90 days (HR = 1.44, CI: 1.37 - 1.52, p <0.0001) and at 1 year (HR = 1.19, CI: 1.15 - 1.24, p <0.0001), but similar mortality risk at 3 years (HR = 1.03, CI: 0.98 - 1.08, p = 0.2630). Risk of all-cause hospitalization was higher in patients with non-evidence-based ICDs at 90 days (HR = 1.17, CI: 1.14 - 1.20, p <0.0001), but the difference diminished at 1 year (HR = 1.04, CI 1.00 - 1.07, p = 0.0272) and at 3 years (HR = 0.94, CI: 0.90 - 0.99, p = 0.0105). In conclusion, among patients undergoing primary prevention ICD implantations between 2010 and 2013, those with non-evidence-based ICDs were at increased risk of mortality and readmission during longitudinal follow-up. Differences in the risk of mortality and hospitalization were highest in the first year following device implantation., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study analyzed the predictors of defibrillation safety margin (DSM) testing at the time of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) insertion and factors associated with inadequate DSM in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD)., Background: There are few data about the prevalence and safety of DSM testing in those with CHD., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of all patients with atrial or ventricular septal defect, tetralogy of Fallot, transposition of the great vessels, Ebstein anomaly, or common ventricle undergoing a transvenous ICD procedure in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) ICD Registry from April 2010 to March 2016, and DSM testing was assessed. Inadequate DSM was defined as a lowest successful energy tested <10 J than the maximum output of the ICD generator., Results: Of all ICD recipients (N = 7,024), DSM testing was performed in 52.0% (n = 3,654). The mean lowest successful energy tested was 20.7 ± 7.3 J. Of those with DSM adequacy data available (n = 3,623), an inadequate DSM occurred in 13.8% (n = 501). After multivariable adjustment, DSM testing was not associated with in-hospital complications or death (odds ratio [OR]: 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79 to 1.28) but was associated with lower odds of prolonged hospital stay (>3 days) (OR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.84; p < 0.0001). An inadequate DSM was not associated with in-hospital death or complications (OR: 1.27; 95% CI: 0.79 to 2.04) or prolonged hospital stay (OR: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.995 to 1.81)., Conclusions: DSM testing is being performed less frequently over time and seems safe in those with CHD. An inadequate DSM was not associated with worse in-hospital outcomes., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This research was supported by the American College of Cardiology’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR). The views expressed in the manuscript represent those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NCDR or its associated professional societies identified at CVQuality.ACC.org/NCDR. Dr Curtis has a contract with the American College of Cardiology for his role as Senior Medical Officer, NCDR; receives salary support from the American College of Cardiology, NCDR; receives funding from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop and maintain performance measures that are used for public reporting; and holds equity interest in Medtronic. Dr Hsu has received honoraria from Medtronic, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Biosense Webster, Zoll Medical, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; has received research grants from Biosense Webster and Biotronik; and has equity interest in Acutus Medical and Vektor Medical. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Whether insurance status influences practice patterns in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) defibrillators, when indicated, is not known., Methods and Results: We analyzed the NCDR ICD Registry to evaluate associations of insurance status with guidelines-based receipt of CRT, as well as device-type, complication rates, and use of optimal medical therapy defined by guidelines. Among 798,028 patients with de novo ICD implants, we included only patients < 65 years (those older have Medicare) and excluded those admitted before 2006 (n=1,835) or with insurance coverage other than Medicare, Medicaid or private insurance (n=25,695) leaving 286,556 for analysis. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to control for imbalances between groups. Mean age was 53 years, 29% were female. Patients with private insurance and Medicare were more likely to receive CRT-D when indicated (79.6%, OR 1.19 95% CI 1.09-1.28, P <.001 and 78.5%, OR 1.11 95% CI 1.01-1.21 P = .03, respectively) compared to the uninsured (76.7%). The uninsured were also more likely than other groups to receive a single-chamber device. Complication rates did not differ. Uninsured patients were, however, more likely to receive optimal medical therapy, particularly in the subgroup receiving the implant for primary prevention., Conclusions: In propensity-weighted analysis, uninsured patients are less likely to receive CRT when indicated but more likely to be receiving optimal medical therapy at discharge. Reasons for differences in device implantation practices based on insurance status require further study., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Frequent right ventricular (RV) pacing can cause and exacerbate heart failure. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes among patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction who need frequent RV pacing, but the patterns of use of CRT vs dual chamber (DC) devices and the associated outcomes among these patients in clinical practice is not known., Objective: To assess outcomes, variability in use of device type, and trends in use of device type over time among patients undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation who were likely to require frequent RV pacing but who did not have a class I indication for CRT., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) ICD Registry. A total of 3100 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing first-time implantation of CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) or DC-ICD from 2010 to 2016 who had a class I or II guideline ventricular bradycardia pacing indication but not a class I indication for CRT were included. Data were analyzed from August 2018 to October 2019., Exposures: Implantation of a CRT-D or DC-ICD., Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and complications were ascertained from Medicare claims data. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and Fine-Gray models were used to evaluate 1-year mortality and heart failure hospitalization, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate 30-day and 90-day complications. All models accounted for clustering. The median odds ratio (MOR) was used to assess variability and represents the odds that a randomly selected patient receiving CRT-D at a hospital with high implant rates would receive CRT-D if they had been treated at a hospital with low CRT-D implant rates., Results: A total of 3100 individuals were included. The mean (SD) age was 76.3 (6.4) years, and 2500 (80.6%) were men. The 1698 patients (54.7%) receiving CRT-D were more likely than those receiving DC-ICD to have third-degree atrioventricular block (828 [48.8%] vs 432 [30.8%]; P < .001), nonischemic cardiomyopathy (508 [29.9%] vs 255 [18.2%]; P < .001), and prior heart failure hospitalizations (703 [41.4%] vs 421 [30.0%]; P < .001). Following adjustment, CRT-D was associated with lower 1-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P = .001) and heart failure hospitalization (subdistribution HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.97; P = .02) and no difference in complications compared with DC-ICD. Hospital variation in use of CRT was present (MOR, 2.00), and the use of CRT in this cohort was higher over time (654 of 1351 [48.4%] in 2010 vs 362 of 594 [60.9%] in 2016; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of older patients in contemporary practice undergoing ICD implantation with a bradycardia pacing indication but without a class I indication for CRT, CRT-D was associated with better outcomes compared with DC devices. Variability in use of device type was observed, and the rate of CRT implantation increased over time.

Background and Objectives: Patients on dialysis are at high risk of complications related to implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation; use of subcutaneous ICDs may be preferred over transvenous devices due to lower risk of bloodstream infection and interference with vascular access sites. We evaluated trends in use and in-hospital outcomes of subcutaneous compared with transvenous ICDs among patients on dialysis in the United States., Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: Retrospective analysis of ICD implants from 2012 to 2018 among patients on dialysis reported to the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry, a nationally representative US ICD Registry. We examined overall trends in subcutaneous ICD adoption as a proportion of all eligible ICD implants among patients on dialysis and then compared in-hospital outcomes between eligible subcutaneous ICD and transvenous ICD recipients using inverse probability of treatment weighting., Results: Of the 23,136 total ICD implants in patients on dialysis during the study period, 3195 (14%) were subcutaneous ICDs. Among eligible first-time ICD recipients on dialysis, the proportion of subcutaneous ICDs used increased yearly from 10% in 2012 to 69% in 2018. In propensity score-weighted analysis of 3327 patients, compared with transvenous ICDs, patients on dialysis receiving subcutaneous ICDs had a higher rate of in-hospital cardiac arrest (2% versus 0.4%, P =0.002), but there was no significant difference in total in-hospital complications (2% versus 1%, P =0.08), all-cause death, or length of hospital stay., Conclusions: The utilization of subcutaneous ICDs among US patients on dialysis has been steadily increasing. The overall risk of short-term complications is low and comparable with transvenous ICDs, but higher risks of in-hospital cardiac arrest merits closer monitoring and further investigation., Podcast: This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2020&#95;09&#95;23&#95;CJN07920520.mp3., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Importance: Little is known about the association between industry payments and medical device selection., Objective: To examine the association between payments from device manufacturers to physicians and device selection for patients undergoing first-time implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D)., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, patients who received a first-time ICD or CRT-D device from any of the 4 major manufacturers (January 1, 2016-December 31, 2018) were identified. The data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry was linked with the Open Payments Program's payment data. Patients were categorized into 4 groups (A, B, C, and D) corresponding to the manufacturer from which the physician who performed the implantation received the largest payment. For each patient group, the proportion of patients who received a device from the manufacturer that provided the largest payment to the physician who performed implantation was determined. Within each group, the absolute difference in proportional use of devices between the manufacturer that made the highest payment and the proportion of devices from the same manufacturer in the entire study cohort (expected prevalence) was calculated., Exposures: Manufacturers' payments to physicians who performed an ICD or CRT-D implantation., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of the study was the manufacturer of the device used for the implantation., Results: Over a 3-year period, 145 900 patients (median age, 65 years; 29.6% women) received ICD or CRT-D devices from the 4 manufacturers implanted by 4435 physicians at 1763 facilities. Among these physicians, 4152 (94%) received payments from device manufacturers ranging from $2 to $323 559 with a median payment of $1211 (interquartile range, $390-$3702). Between 38.5% and 54.7% of patients received devices from the manufacturers that had provided physicians with the largest payments. Patients were substantially more likely to receive devices made by the manufacturer that provided the largest payment to the physician who performed implantation than they were from each other individual manufacturer. The absolute differences in proportional use from the expected prevalence were 22.4% (95% CI, 21.9%-22.9%) for manufacturer A; 14.5% (95% CI, 14.0%-15.0%) for manufacturer B; 18.8% (95% CI, 18.2%-19.4%) for manufacturer C; and 30.6% (95% CI, 30.0%-31.2%) for manufacturer D., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, a large proportion of ICD or CRT-D implantations were performed by physicians who received payments from device manufacturers. Patients were more likely to receive ICD or CRT-D devices from the manufacturer that provided the highest total payment to the physician who performed an ICD or CRT-D implantation than each other manufacturer individually.

Background: Randomized trials evaluating cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) have excluded patients with a pre-existing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). The association of CRT upgrade with clinical outcomes in patients with a pre-existing ICD is unclear., Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine a CRT-eligible population to evaluate clinical outcomes associated with CRT upgrade compared to patients who did not undergo CRT., Methods: Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) ICD Registry between April 2010 and December 2014, we created a hierarchical logistic regression model to identify predictors of CRT upgrade in a CRT-eligible ICD population. In the subpopulation of patients with Medicare-linked claims data, differential outcomes were determined with censoring at 3 years. The primary endpoint of this study was all-cause mortality, with secondary endpoints of rates of hospitalization and procedural complications., Results: CRT upgrade was performed in 75.5% of CRT-eligible patients with pre-existing ICD (n = 15,803). Presence of left bundle branch block conduction was the strongest predictor of CRT upgrade (odds ratio [OR] 4.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.08-5.11; P <.0001). In both unadjusted and adjusted analyses, CRT upgrade was associated with a reduction in mortality at 3 years (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.80; 95% CI 0.70-0.92; P = .001; adjusted HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.72-0.98; P = .02, respectively). Compared to patients with ICD generator replacement only, patients who underwent CRT upgrade experienced no different 3-year rates of hospitalization (adjusted HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.91-1.12; P = .81) or 1-year periprocedural complication rates (adjusted HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.79-1.45; P = .66)., Conclusion: In a national registry of CRT-eligible patients with pre-existing ICD, upgrade to CRT was associated with lower rates of mortality than continued medical management., (Copyright © 2020 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Data is lacking on the contemporary risk of death and readmission following implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathies (NICM) compared with ischemic cardiomyopathies (ICM) in a large nationally representative cohort. We performed a retrospective cohort study using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry linked with Medicare claims from April 1, 2010 to December 31, 2013. We established a cohort of NICM and ICM patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% who received a de novo, primary prevention ICD. We compared mortality and readmission using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard regressions models. We also evaluated temporal trends in mortality. In 31,044 NICM and 68,458 ICM patients with a median follow up of 2.4 years, 1-year mortality was significantly higher in ICM patients (12.3%) compared with NICM (7.9%, p < 0.001). The higher mortality in ICM patients remained significant after adjustment for covariates (hazard ratio [HR] 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36 to 1.45), and was consistent in subgroup analyses. These findings were consistent across the duration of the study. ICM patients were also significantly more likely to be readmitted for all causes (adjusted HR 1.15, CI 1.12 to 1.18) and for heart failure (adjusted HR 1.25, CI 1.21 to 1.31). In conclusion, the risks of mortality and hospital readmission after primary prevention ICD implantation were significantly higher in patients with ICM compared with NICM which was consistent across all patient subgroups tested and over the duration of the study., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Outcomes data in patients with cardiac amyloidosis after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation are limited. We compared outcomes of patients with ICDs implanted for cardiac amyloidosis versus nonischemic cardiomyopathies (NICMs) and evaluated factors associated with mortality among patients with cardiac amyloidosis. Methods and Results Using National Cardiovascular Data Registry's ICD Registry data between April 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015, we created a 1:5 propensity-matched cohort of patients implanted with ICDs with cardiac amyloidosis and NICM. We compared mortality between those with cardiac amyloidosis and matched patients with NICM using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models. We also evaluated risk factors associated with 1-year mortality in patients with cardiac amyloidosis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Among 472 patients with cardiac amyloidosis and 2360 patients with propensity-matched NICMs, 1-year mortality was significantly higher in patients with cardiac amyloidosis compared with patients with NICMs (26.9% versus 11.3%, P <0.001). After adjustment for covariates, cardiac amyloidosis was associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% CI, 1.56-2.08). In a multivariable analysis of patients with cardiac amyloidosis, several factors were significantly associated with mortality: syncope (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.22-2.59), ventricular tachycardia (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.15-2.38), cerebrovascular disease (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.28-3.23), diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.05-2.27), creatinine = 1.6 to 2.5 g/dL (HR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.32-3.02), and creatinine >2.5 (HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 2.72-6.93). Conclusions Mortality after ICD implantation is significantly higher in patients with cardiac amyloidosis than in patients with propensity-matched NICMs. Factors associated with death among patients with cardiac amyloidosis include prior syncope, ventricular tachycardia, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and impaired renal function.

Importance: Little is known about the utilization rates and outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) placement among patients with advanced heart failure (HF)., Objective: To examine utilization rates, patient characteristics, and outcomes of ICD and CRT-D placements among patients with advanced HF., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a post hoc analysis of 81 492 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries enrolled in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry between January 2010 and December 2014. Inclusion criteria were patients who had received an HF diagnosis, had a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or lower, and showed evidence of advanced HF, which was defined as New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV symptoms, inotrope use within the last 60 days, left ventricular assist device in situ, or orthotopic heart transplant listing. The comparator group included patients with NYHA class II and no HF hospitalization within the last 12 months, no left ventricular assist device, no orthotopic heart transplant listing, and no current or recent inotrope use. All eligible patients underwent first-time ICD or CRT-D placement for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. Data were analyzed from January 2010 to December 2014., Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality and periprocedural complications., Results: Of 81 492 Medicare patients, 3343 had advanced HF (4.1%) and 19 424 were in the comparator group (23.8%). Among the advanced HF population, the mean (SD) age of patients was 74 (9) years, and patients were predominantly white individuals (81.5%) and men (71.1%). The all-cause mortality rate at 30 days was 3.1% (95% CI, 2.6%-3.8%) in the advanced HF group vs 0.5% (0.4%-0.6%) in the comparator group (P < .001). In the advanced HF population, the aggregate in-hospital periprocedural complication rate was 3.74% (95% CI, 3.12%-4.44%) vs 1.10% (95% CI, 0.95%-1.25%) in the comparator group (P < .001). Most adverse events in this group were in-hospital fatality (1.82%; 95% CI, 1.40%-2.34%) and resuscitated cardiac arrest (1.05%; 95% CI, 0.73%-1.45%). Patients with NYHA class IV (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.02-1.93; P = .04), ischemic heart disease (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.04-1.48; P = .02), or diabetes (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33; P = .01) had a higher risk of death., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing ICD or CRT-D placement for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, only a small proportion had advanced HF. These patients experienced clinically important periprocedural complication rates associated with in-hospital death and cardiac arrest relative to patients with nonadvanced HF.

Background: There are little data about the prevalence and safety of DFT testing in pediatric populations. We analyzed the predictors and outcomes of defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing at the time of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implant and factors associated with inadequate defibrillation safety margin (DSM) in pediatric patients., Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of initial transvenous ICD implantations in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) ICD Registry of patients ≤21 years. DSM was defined as the lowest successful energy tested <10 J than the maximum output of the ICD. Subjects were followed to hospital discharge., Results: Of all ICD recipients (n = 3943), DFT testing was performed in 64.0% (n = 2522) though decreased over time. In those with DFT data available (n = 2500), an inadequate DSM occurred in 13.6% (n = 339). After multivariable adjustment, DFT testing was not associated with in-hospital complications or death (OR 0.789, 95% CI 0.579-1.076), but was associated with lower odds of prolonged hospital stay (>3 days) (OR 0.543, 95% CI 0.436-0.677). An inadequate DSM was associated with an increased risk of complications or death (OR 1.893, 95% CI 1.203-2.979) but not with a prolonged hospital stay (OR 1.307, 95% CI 0.878-1.947)., Conclusions: In the largest dataset of DFT testing in pediatric ICD recipients, we found that DFT testing use decreased over time and was not associated with an increase in in-hospital complications in pediatric patients. An inadequate DSM, however, was associated with a higher rate of in-hospital complications or death., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with heart failure having a low expected probability of arrhythmic death may not benefit from implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs)., Objective: The objective was to validate models to identify cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) candidates who may not require CRT devices with ICD functionality., Methods: Heart failure (HF) patients with CRT-Ds and non-CRT ICDs from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry and others with no device from 3 separate registries and 3 heart failure trials were analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression for survival with the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM; estimates overall mortality) and the Seattle Proportional Risk Model (SPRM; estimates proportional risk of arrhythmic death)., Results: Among 60,185 patients (age 68.6 ± 11.3 years, 31.9% female) meeting CRT-D criteria, 38,348 had CRT-Ds, 11,389 had non-CRT ICDs, and 10,448 had no device. CRT-D patients had a prominent adjusted survival benefit (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.50-0.55, P < .0001 versus no device). CRT-D patients with SHFM-predicted 4-year survival ≥81% (median) and a low SPRM-predicted probability of an arrhythmic mode of death ≤42% (median) had an absolute adjusted risk reduction attributable to ICD functionality of just 0.95%/year with the majority of survival benefit (70%) attributable to CRT pacing. In contrast, CRT-D patients with SHFM-predicted survival median had substantially more ICD-attributable benefit (absolute risk reduction of 2.6%/year combined; P < .0001)., Conclusions: The SPRM and SHFM identified a quarter of real-world, primary prevention CRT-D patients with minimal benefit from ICD functionality. Further studies to evaluate CRT pacemakers in these low-risk CRT candidates are indicated., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation involves left ventricular (LV) lead placement for biventricular pacing and is more complex than implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)-only implantation. Differences in the prescription of CRT-D versus ICD may result from clinician biases based on patient body habitus, and body habitus may be associated with LV lead implantation failure., Objective: We sought to evaluate whether patient body mass index (BMI) was associated with planned use and implantation failure of CRT-D therapy., Methods: We studied all patients enrolled in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry who met standard CRT-D criteria and received either an ICD or CRT-D between 2010 and 2012. BMI was categorized based on World Health Organization classification. Using hierarchical logistic regression, two multivariate models adjusted for patient demographic and clinical characteristics were fit based on the following outcome variables: (1) planned implantation with CRT-D versus ICD and (2) failed versus successful LV lead placement., Results: Of 337,547 patients, 41,872 met inclusion criteria for the first analysis and 35,186 met criteria for the second analysis. After multivariable adjustment, patients with extreme (BMI > 40 kg/m 2 ) obesity were less likely to receive guideline-concordant CRT-D compared with patients with normal weight (adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.75-0.99; p = 0.04). Extreme (BMI > 40 kg/m 2 ) obesity was associated with higher odds of failed LV lead placement (AOR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.72, p = 0.01)., Conclusions: Compared with normal weight patients, extremely obese (BMI > 40 kg/m 2 ) CRT-D eligible patients were less likely to be prescribed CRT-D and were at higher odds for failed LV lead placement.

Importance: Defibrillation testing (DFT) is performed during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation to assess the capacity of the device to detect and terminate ventricular arrhythmias. However, DFT can result in complications and omission of its use has been shown to be safe., Objective: To describe temporal trends and variation in the use of DFT in contemporary practice in the United States., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cross-sectional study used data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. A total of 499 211 patients from 1794 different facilities undergoing first-time ICD implantation from April 2010 to December 2015 were included. Data analysis was performed from May 20, 2015, to August 15, 2019., Exposure: Defibrillation testing was assessed using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry., Main Outcomes and Measures: Defibrillation testing rates and median odds ratios (MORs) were assessed over time. The MOR represents the odds that a randomly selected patient receiving testing at a hospital with high testing rates would be tested compared with if he or she had received care at a hospital with low testing rates., Results: Of the 499 211 patients from 1794 different facilities included in this analysis, the mean (SD) age of the population was 65.5 (13.4) years and 356 681 patients (71.4%) were men. The use of DFT declined from 71.6% in the first calendar quarter of 2010 to 36.4% in the fourth quarter of 2015 (P < .001). Patients undergoing DFT were more likely than those without testing to have ischemic heart disease (170 569 [58.1%] vs 116 295 [56.6%]), ventricular tachycardia (91 500 [31.2%] vs 58 949 [28.7%]), and less advanced heart failure (New York Heart Association class I and II, 153 188 [52.2%] vs 91 215 [44.4%]) (P < .001 for all). The MOR for the use of defibrillation testing was 3.78 (95% CI, 3.54-4.03) in 2010, increasing to 6.05 (95% CI, 5.61-6.52) in 2015, indicating that by 2015 a randomly selected patient receiving testing at a hospital with high testing rates would have a 6-fold higher odds of being tested than if they had received care at a hospital with low testing rates., Conclusions and Relevance: Defibrillation testing at the time of ICD placement in the United States may have declined over time; however, institutional variation in its use appears to be marked and increased. This variability in the reduced use of defibrillation testing could reflect differences in individual or institutional cultures of practice.

Background: Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are associated with procedure-related complications, yet little is known about variation in complication rates among institutions that may suggest disparities in care quality., Objective: To assess institutional variation in risk-standardized complication rates (RSCRs) for CIED., Design: Cohort study., Setting: 174 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand, 98 of which implanted at least 25 CIEDs during the study period., Participants: 81 304 patients older than 18 years (mean, 74.7 years [SD, 12.4]; 37.9% female) who received a new CIED (65 711 permanent pacemakers [PPMs] and 15 593 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators [ICDs]) in 2010 to 2015., Measurements: RSCRs and frequencies of major device-related complications during hospitalization or within 90 days of discharge., Results: Of the cohort, 6664 patients (8.2%) had a major complication. Although complication rates were higher for ICDs than PPMs (10.04% vs. 7.76%), 76.5% of all complications were attributable to PPMs (5098 vs. 1566 for ICDs). Among hospitals that implanted at least 25 CIEDs, the median RSCR was 8.1%; however, rates varied from 5.3% to 14.3%, with 22 hospitals identified as having RSCRs that differed significantly from the national average. Similar variation was observed when RSCRs for PPM implantation (n = 96 hospitals) (median RSCR, 7.6% [range, 5.4% to 12.9%]) were considered separately from those for ICD placement (n = 68 hospitals) (median RSCR, 9.7% [range, 6.2% to 16.9%]) and persisted when only elective procedures were assessed (n = 88 hospitals) (median RSCR, 7.4% [range, 4.7% to 13.0%])., Limitation: Possible unmeasured confounding from the use of administrative data., Conclusion: CIED complications are common and vary among hospitals, suggesting institutional variation in CIED care quality. Concerted clinical and policy interventions are needed to address CIED-related complications. These efforts should preferentially target PPMs, because most CIED complications are attributable to these devices., Primary Funding Source: The Hospitals Contribution Fund Research Foundation.

Background: Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators has been associated with reduced rates of all-cause rehospitalizations and mortality among device recipients, but long-term economic benefits have not been studied., Methods and Results: An economic model was developed using the PREDICT RM database comparing outcomes with and without remote monitoring. The database included patients ages 65 to 89 who received a Boston Scientific device from 2006 to 2010. Parametric survival equations were derived for rehospitalization and mortality to predict outcomes over a maximum time horizon of 25 years. The analysis assessed rehospitalization, mortality, and the cost-effectiveness (expressed as the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year) of remote monitoring versus no remote monitoring. Remote monitoring was associated with reduced mortality; average life expectancy and average quality-adjusted life years increased by 0.77 years and 0.64, respectively (6.85 life years and 5.65 quality-adjusted life years). When expressed per patient-year, remote monitoring patients had fewer subsequent rehospitalizations (by 0.08 per patient-year) and lower hospitalization costs (by $554 per patient year). With longer life expectancies, remote monitoring patients experienced an average of 0.64 additional subsequent rehospitalizations with increased average lifetime hospitalization costs of $2784. Total costs of outpatient and physician claims were higher with remote monitoring ($47 515 vs $42 792), but average per patient-year costs were lower ($6232 vs $6244). The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $10 752 per quality-adjusted life year, making remote monitoring high-value care., Conclusion: Remote monitoring is a cost-effective approach for the lifetime management of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators., (© 2019 The Authors Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: The benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with non-left bundle branch block (LBBB) conduction abnormality have not been fully explored., Objectives: This study sought to evaluate clinical outcomes among Medicare-aged patients with nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay (NICD) versus right bundle branch block (RBBB) in patients eligible for implantation with a CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D)., Methods: Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) registry data between 2010 and 2013, the authors compared outcomes in CRT-eligible patients implanted with CRT-D versus ICD-only therapy among patients with NICD and RBBB. Also, among all CRT-D-implanted patients, the authors compared outcomes in those with NICD versus RBBB. Survival curves and multivariable adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were used to assess outcomes including hospitalization and death., Results: In 11,505 non-LBBB CRT-eligible patients, after multivariable adjustment, among patients with RBBB, CRT-D was not associated with better outcomes, compared with ICD alone, regardless of QRS duration. Among patients with NICD and a QRS ≥150 ms, CRT-D was associated with decreased mortality at 3 years compared with ICD alone (HR: 0.602; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.416 to 0.871; p = 0.0071). Among 5,954 CRT-D-implanted patients, after multivariable adjustment NICD compared with RBBB was associated with lower mortality at 3 years in those with a QRS duration of ≥150 ms (HR: 0.757; 95% CI: 0.625 to 0.917; p = 0.0044)., Conclusions: Among non-LBBB CRT-D-eligible patients, CRT-D implantation was associated with better outcomes compared with ICD alone specifically in NICD patients with a QRS duration of ≥150 ms. Careful patient selection should be considered for CRT-D implantation in patients with non-LBBB conduction., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Patients undergoing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations have high rates of long-term device-related complications and reoperations. Whether physician specialty training is associated with differences in long-term outcomes following ICD implantation is unclear. Methods and Results We linked data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry with Medicare fee-for-service claims to identify physicians who performed ≥10 index ICDs from 2006 to 2009. We used data from the American Board of Medical Specialties to group the specialty of the implanting physician into mutually exclusive categories: electrophysiologists, interventional cardiologists, general cardiologists, thoracic surgeons, and other specialties. Primary outcomes were long-term device-related complications requiring reoperations or hospitalizations and reoperations for reasons other than complications. We compared the cumulative incidence rates and case-mix adjusted rates of long-term outcomes of index ICD implantations across physician specialties. Our analysis had a median follow-up of 47 months and included 107 966 index ICD implantations. Electrophysiologists had the lowest rates of incident long-term device-related complications (14.1%; interventional cardiologists, 15.3%; general cardiologists, 15.4%; thoracic surgeons, 16.4%; other specialists, 15.2%; P<0.001) and reoperations for reasons other than complications (electrophysiologists, 16.7%; interventional cardiologists, 17.0%; general cardiologists, 18.0%; thoracic surgeons, 18.4%; other specialists, 18.0%; P<0.001). Compared with patients whose ICDs were implanted by electrophysiologists, patients with implantations performed by nonelectrophysiologists were at higher risk of having long-term device-related complications (relative risk for interventional cardiologists: 1.16 [95% CI, 1.08-1.25]; general cardiologists: 1.13 [1.08-1.18]; thoracic surgeons: 1.20 [1.06-1.37]; all P<0.001, but not other specialists: 1.08 [0.99-1.17]; P=0.07). Compared to patients with implantations performed by electrophysiologists, patients with implantations performed by general cardiologists and thoracic surgeons were at higher risk of reoperation for noncomplication causes (relative risk for general cardiologists: 1.10 [1.05-1.15]; thoracic surgeons: 1.16 [1.00-1.33]; both P<0.05). Conclusions Patients with ICD implantations performed by electrophysiologists had the lowest risks of having long-term device-related complications and reoperations for noncomplication causes. Consideration of physician specialty before ICD implantation may represent an opportunity to minimize long-term adverse outcomes.

Importance: The US Department of Justice (DOJ) conducted an investigation into implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) not meeting the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services National Coverage Determination (NCD) criteria., Objective: To examine changes in the proportion of initial primary prevention ICDs that did not meet NCD criteria following the announcement of the DOJ investigation at hospitals that reached settlements (settlement hospitals) and those that did not (nonsettlement hospitals)., Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, longitudinal, serial cross-sectional analysis of 300 151 initial primary prevention ICDs among Medicare beneficiaries from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2015, at 1809 US hospitals in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) ICD Registry, of which 452 hospitals (with 99 591 primary prevention ICDs) reached settlements with the DOJ., Exposures: The DOJ investigation announcement in 2010., Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of initial primary prevention ICDs not meeting NCD criteria., Results: In January 2007, the proportion of initial ICDs not meeting NCD criteria was 25.8% (95% CI, 24.7% to 26.8%) at settlement hospitals and 22.8% (95% CI, 22.1% to 23.5%) at nonsettlement hospitals (P < .001). Over the study period, there was a 62.7% (95% CI, 59.2% to 66.1%) relative decrease and 16.1% (95% CI, 14.8% to 17.5%) absolute decrease in the proportion of ICDs not meeting NCD criteria at settlement hospitals compared with a 53.2% (95% CI, 50.4% to 56.0%) relative decrease and 12.1% (95% CI, 11.2% to 13.0%) absolute decrease in proportion at nonsettlement hospitals (P < .001 for both; P for interaction < .001). Trends significantly differed between hospital groups only in the period following the announcement of the DOJ investigation (January 2010-June 2011) [corrected], with larger and more rapid decreases at settlement hospitals (P for interaction = .01). Over the study period, there was a 32.8% (95% CI, 29.9% to 35.7%) relative decrease and a 1703 ICDs (95% CI, 1520 to 1886) absolute decrease in the volume of primary prevention ICDs implanted at settlement hospitals compared with a 17.4% (95% CI, 14.8% to 20.0%) relative decrease and a 1495 ICDs (95% CI, 1249 to 1741) absolute decrease in volume at nonsettlement hospitals (P < .001 for both; P for interaction < .001), with more modest decreases or slight increases in secondary prevention ICD volume. These patterns were similar when examining ICD utilization among non-Medicare beneficiaries., Conclusions and Relevance: From 2007 through 2015, the volume of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and the proportion of devices not meeting the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services National Coverage Determination criteria decreased at all hospitals with substantially larger decreases at hospitals that reached settlements in the US Department of Justice investigation. These patterns extended to implantable cardioverter-defibrillators placed in non-Medicare beneficiaries, which were not the focus of the US Department of Justice investigation.

Background: Compared with transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), subcutaneous (S)-ICDs require a higher energy for effective defibrillation. Although ventricular fibrillation conversion testing (CT) is recommended after S-ICD implantation to ensure an adequate margin between the defibrillation threshold and maximum device output (80J), prior work found that adherence to this recommendation is declining., Methods: We studied first-time recipients of S-ICDs (between September 28, 2012, and April 1, 2016) in the National Cardiovascular Database Registry ICD Registry to determine predictors of use of CT, predictors of an insufficient safety margin (ISM, defined as ventricular fibrillation conversion energy >65J) during testing, and inhospital outcomes associated with use of CT. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to predict use of CT and ISM. Inverse probability weighted logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between use of CT and inhospital adverse events including death., Results: CT testing was performed in 70.7% (n=5624) of 7960 patients with S-ICDs. Although deferral of CT was associated with several patient characteristics (including increased body mass index, increased body surface area, severely reduced ejection fraction, dialysis dependence, warfarin use, anemia, and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy), the facility effect was comparatively more important (area under the curve for patient level versus generalized linear mixed model: 0.619 versus 0.877). An ISM occurred in 6.9% (n=336) of 4864 patients without a prior ICD and was more common among white patients and those with ventricular pacing on the preimplant ECG, higher preimplant blood pressure, larger body surface area, higher body mass index, and lower ejection fraction. A risk score was able to identify patients at low (<5%), medium (5% to 10%), and high risk (>10%) for ISM. CT testing was not associated with a composite of inhospital complications including death., Conclusions: Use of CT testing after S-ICD implantation was driven by facility preference to a greater extent than patient factors and was not associated with a composite of inhospital complications or death. ISM was relatively uncommon and is associated with several widely available patient characteristics. These data may inform ICD system selection and a targeted approach to CT., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Transvenous lead extraction is an integral part of management of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Real-world incidence and predictors of perioperative complications in extractions involving implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads have not been described in detail., Methods and Results: Data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Registry were analyzed. Lead extraction was defined as removal of leads implanted for >1 year. Predictors of major perioperative complications for all extraction procedures (11 304) and for high-voltage lead (8362, 74%), across 762 centers, were analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Major complication occurred in 258 (2.3%) extraction procedures. Of these 258 with a complication, 41 (16%) required urgent cardiac surgery. Of these 41, 14 (34%) died during surgery. Among the total 98 (0.9%) deaths reported, 18 (0.16% of total) occurred during transvenous lead extraction. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, female sex, admission other than electively for procedure, ≥3 leads extracted, longer implant duration, dislodgement of other leads, and patient's clinical status requiring lead extraction (infection/perforation) were associated with increased risk of complications. Smaller lead diameter, flat versus round coil shape, and greater proximal surface coil area were multivariate predictors of major perioperative complications specific to high-voltage leads., Conclusions: The rate of major complications and mortality with transvenous lead extraction is similar in the real-world outcomes to that reported in recent single-center studies from high-volume centers. There is significant risk of urgent cardiac surgery, which carries a high mortality, and planning for appropriate cardiothoracic surgery backup is imperative., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Coronary venous dissection is a known complication of left ventricular lead placement during implantation of a cardiac resynchronization with defibrillator (CRT-D) system. A large-scale evaluation of the prevalence of coronary venous dissection and associated in-hospital clinical outcomes has not been performed. We sought to identify predictors of coronary venous dissection and evaluate subsequent in-hospital adverse events in those with the complication. We studied 140,991 first-time CRT-D recipients in the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) Registry implanted between 2006 and 2011. Using hierarchical multivariable logistic regression adjusting for patient, implanting physician, and hospital characteristics, we examined predictors of coronary venous dissection and its association with other major complications, length of hospital stay, and in-hospital mortality. Coronary venous dissection occurred in 392 patients (0.28%). After multivariable adjustment, female gender and left bundle branch block were associated with greater odds of coronary venous dissection. Conversely, atrial fibrillation, previous coronary artery bypass graft, and higher implanter procedure volume were associated with lower odds of coronary venous dissection (all p values <0.05). After multivariable adjustment, CRT-D recipients with coronary venous dissection had greater odds of major complications (odds ratio [OR] 10.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.75 to 16.24, p <0.0001), postprocedural hospital stays >3 days (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.29, p <0.0001), but not in-hospital death (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.25, p = 0.8012). In conclusion, in a large population of first-time CRT-D recipients, specific patient and implanter characteristics predicted coronary venous dissection risk. Coronary venous dissection was associated with major in-hospital complications and prolonged hospitalization, but not death., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Patients with childhood heart disease are living longer and entering adulthood, and may undergo implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation to reduce the risk of sudden death. We evaluated the characteristics of adult patients with congenital heart disease or left ventricular noncompaction cardiomyopathy (LVNC) in the National Cardiovascular Disease Registry ICD Registry and determined ICD-related in-hospital complications. Patients with LVNC or transposition of the great arteries, tetralogy of Fallot, Ebstein's anomaly, atrial septal defect, ventricular septal defect, or common ventricle were identified in the registry. In-hospital complications were compared among different diagnoses using the chi-square test for categorical variables and the F-test in analyses of variance for continuous variables. A total of 3,077 patients were identified. The mean age was 48.0 ± 16.0 years, and 39.9% were female. Single-chamber ICDs were implanted in 25.2%, dual chamber in 41.9%, and cardiac resynchronization in 30.8%. Intraprocedural or postprocedural complications occurred in 70 patients (2.3%); there were 6 in-hospital deaths (0.2%). The most frequent complications were acute lead dislodgments, pneumothorax, and hematomas. Patients with Ebstein's anomaly had the greatest complication rate (8.3%, p = 0.03). The complication rate was 1.55% in single-chamber devices, 1.86% in dual chamber, and 3.5% in cardiac resynchronization (p < 0.001). For initial implants, the complication rate was 2.55%, 1.62% in generator replacements, and 8.77% in lead revisions (p = 0.001). In conclusion, in this large contemporary adult cohort of congenital heart disease and LVNC patients who underwent ICD implant procedures, periprocedural complication rates were low. Lead-related risks predominated., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This analysis evaluated temporal trends and factors associated with the use of dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads., Background: Data suggest that dual-coil ICD leads are not associated with lower mortality and can be more difficult to extract than single-coil leads., Methods: A total of 435,772 patients at 1,690 hospitals underwent ICD lead insertion in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's ICD Registry between April 2010 and December 2015. Hospitals were classified into 3 pre-specified groups (low, decreasing, or high use) based on the frequency of dual-coil lead use., Results: Nationally, the use of dual-coil leads has decreased over time, from 87% of ICD leads in early 2010 to 55% at the end of 2015. Hospitals in the low-use (n = 292) or decreasing-use (n = 561) group had more ICDs inserted by electrophysiologists compared to the high-use (n = 837) group (90% or 80% vs 46%; p < 0.001 for both) and more extractions performed (median 7 or 11 vs 2; p < 0.001 for both). Despite statistical differences, there were no clinically significant differences in patient characteristics across all 3 groups., Conclusions: Although the use of dual-coil ICD leads has decreased over time, it continues to represent the majority of insertions in the United States. Hospital-level factors, but not patient factors, were associated with use of dual-coil ICD leads. Whether decreasing dual-coil ICD lead use has improved patient outcomes remains unknown and should be examined in large, multicenter, contemporaneous patient groups., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Recent clinical trials highlight the need for better models to identify patients at higher risk of sudden death., Objectives: The authors hypothesized that the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) for overall survival and the Seattle Proportional Risk Model (SPRM) for proportional risk of sudden death, including death from ventricular arrhythmias, would predict the survival benefit with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)., Methods: Patients with primary prevention ICDs from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) were compared with control patients with heart failure (HF) without ICDs with respect to 5-year survival using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression., Results: Among 98,846 patients with HF (87,914 with ICDs and 10,932 without ICDs), the SHFM was strongly associated with all-cause mortality (p < 0.0001). The ICD-SPRM interaction was significant (p < 0.0001), such that SPRM quintile 5 patients had approximately twice the reduction in mortality with the ICD versus SPRM quintile 1 patients (adjusted hazard ratios [HR]: 0.602; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.537 to 0.675 vs. 0.793; 95% CI: 0.736 to 0.855, respectively). Among patients with SHFM-predicted annual mortality ≤5.7%, those with a SPRM-predicted risk of sudden death below the median had no reduction in mortality with the ICD (adjusted ICD HR: 0.921; 95% CI: 0.787 to 1.08; p = 0.31), whereas those with SPRM above the median derived the greatest benefit (adjusted HR: 0.599; 95% CI: 0.530 to 0.677; p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: The SHFM predicted all-cause mortality in a large cohort with and without ICDs, and the SPRM discriminated and calibrated the potential ICD benefit. Together, the models identified patients less likely to derive a survival benefit from primary prevention ICDs., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Among patients with implantable defibrillators (ICD), use of remote patient monitoring (RPM) is associated with lower risk of death and rehospitalization. Standard ICD RPM can be supplemented with weight and blood pressure data. It is not known whether standard RPM plus routine weight and blood pressure transmission (RPM+) is associated with better outcomes., Methods and Results: RPM+ patients (n=4106) were compared with patients who only transmitted standard ICD RPM data (n=14 183). Logistic regression models identified patient, physician, and hospital characteristics associated with RPM+ utilization. Mortality and rehospitalization were examined using landmark analyses at 180 days after ICD implant in Medicare fee-for-service patients. In these analyses, we examined the independent association between RPM+ utilization and times to events up to 3 years after device implantation with Cox regression models. We further examined whether the association between RPM+ and outcomes varied by frequency or type of transmissions. Determinants of RPM+ utilization included impaired ejection fraction, cardiac resynchronization therapy, and institutional practice. The risk of mortality of RPM+ patients was similar to standard ICD RPM patients (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.19; P =0.34). RPM+ patients also had similar risks of all-cause hospitalization (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.14; P =0.52), cardiovascular hospitalization (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.02; P =0.15), or heart failure hospitalizations (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.05; P =0.18). RPM+ transmission frequency was not associated with outcomes., Conclusions: In patients using standard ICD RPM, the added transmission of weight and blood pressure data was not associated with improved outcomes., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Importance: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces the risk for mortality and heart failure-related events in select patients. Little is known about the use of CRT in combination with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients who are eligible for this therapy in clinical practice., Objective: To (1) identify patient, clinician, and hospital characteristics associated with CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) use and (2) determine the extent of hospital-level variation in the use of CRT-D among guideline-eligible patients undergoing ICD placement., Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter retrospective cohort from 1428 hospitals participating in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry between April 1, 2010, and June 30, 2014. Adult patients meeting class I or IIa guideline recommendations for CRT at the time of device implantation were included in this study., Main Outcomes and Measures: Implantation of an ICD with or without CRT., Results: A total of 63 506 eligible patients (88.6%) received CRT-D at the time of device implantation. The mean (SD) ages of those in the ICD and CRT-D groups were 67.9 (12.2) years and 68.4 (11.5) years, respectively. In hierarchical multivariable models, black race was independently associated with lower use of CRT-D (odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.83) as was nonprivate insurance (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95 for Medicare and OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.82 for Medicaid). Clinician factors associated with greater CRT-D use included clinician implantation volume (OR, 1.01 per 10 additional devices implanted; 95% CI, 1.01-1.01) and electrophysiology training (OR, 3.13 as compared with surgery-boarded clinicians; 95% CI, 2.50-3.85). At the hospital level, the overall median risk-standardized rate of CRT-D use was 79.9% (range, 26.7%-100%; median OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.99-2.18)., Conclusions and Relevance: In a national cohort of patients eligible for CRT-D at the time of device implantation, nearly 90% received a CRT-D device. However, use of CRT-D differed by race and implanting operator characteristics. After accounting for these factors, the use of CRT-D continued to vary widely by hospital. Addressing disparities and variation in CRT-D use among guideline-eligible patients may improve patient outcomes.

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death and disability in the United States. National programs, such as the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, facilitate assessments of the quality of care and outcomes for broad populations of patients with cardiovascular disease. This report provides data for 2014 from 4 National Cardiovascular Data Registry hospital quality programs: 1) CathPCI (Diagnostic Catheterization and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (667,424 procedures performed in 1,612 hospitals); 2) ICD Registry for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (158,649 procedures performed in 1,715 hospitals); 3) ACTION-GWTG (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network-Get With The Guidelines) for acute coronary syndromes (182,903 patients admitted to 907 hospitals); and 4) IMPACT (Improving Pediatric and Adult Congenital Treatment) for cardiac catheterization and intervention for pediatric and adult congenital heart disease (20,169 procedures in 76 hospitals). The report provides perspectives on the demographic and clinical characteristics of enrolled patients, characteristics of participating centers, and selected measures of processes and outcomes of care in these programs., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Trends and in-hospital outcomes associated with early adoption of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) in the United States have not been described., Objectives: To describe early use of the S-ICD in the United States and to compare in-hospital outcomes among patients undergoing S-ICD vs transvenous (TV)-ICD implantation., Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective analysis of 393 734 ICD implants reported to the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry, a nationally representative US ICD registry, between September 28, 2012 (US Food and Drug Administration S-ICD approval date), and March 31, 2015, was conducted. A 1:1:1 propensity-matched analysis of 5760 patients was performed to compare in-hospital outcomes among patients with S-ICD with those of patients with single-chamber (SC)-ICD and dual-chamber (DC)-ICD., Main Outcomes and Measures: Analysis of trends in S-ICD adoption as a function of total ICD implants and comparison of in-hospital outcomes (death, complications, and defibrillation threshold [DFT] testing) among S-ICD and TV-ICD recipients., Results: Of the 393 734 ICD implants evaluated during the study period, 3717 were S-ICDs (0.9%). A total of 109 445 (27.8%) of the patients were female; the mean (SD) age was 67.03 (13.10) years. Use of ICDs increased from 0.2% during the fourth quarter of 2012 to 1.9% during the first quarter of 2015. Compared with SC-ICD and DC-ICD recipients, those with S-ICDs were more often younger, female, black, undergoing dialysis, and had experienced prior cardiac arrest. Among 2791 patients with S-ICD who underwent DFT testing, 2588 (92.7%), 2629 (94.2%), 2635 (94.4%), and 2784 (99.7%) were successfully defibrillated (≤65, ≤70, ≤75, and ≤80 J, respectively). In the propensity-matched analysis of 5760 patients, in-hospital complication rates associated with S-ICDs (0.9%) were comparable to those of SC-ICDs (0.6%) (P = .27) and DC-ICD rates (1.5%) (P = .11). Mean (SD) length of stay after S-ICD implantation was comparable to that after SC-ICD implantation (1.1 [1.5] vs 1.0 [1.2] days; P = .77) and less than after DC-ICD implantation (1.1 [1.5] vs 1.2 [1.5] days; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: The use of S-ICDs is rapidly increasing in the United States. Early adoption has been associated with low complication rates and high rates of successful DFT testing despite frequent use in patients with a high number of comorbidities., Competing Interests: Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr Friedman has received educational grants from Boston Scientific and St Jude and research grants from the American College of Cardiology’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) and is funded by T 32 training grant HL069749-13 from the National Institutes of Health. Dr Patton served as a site principal investigator for the S-ICD Investigational Device Exemption study, which was funded by Cameron Health, which has since been purchased by Boston Scientific. Dr Russo received research support from Boston Scientific and Medtronic and honoraria or consulting fees from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and St Jude. Dr Curtis owns stock in Medtronic, receives research funding from Boston Scientific, and receives salary support from the American College of Cardiology to provide data analytic services. No other disclosures were reported.

Background: Patients with an unused or malfunctioning implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead may have the lead either abandoned or explanted; yet there are limited data on the comparative acute and longer-term safety of these 2 approaches., Methods and Results: We examined in-hospital events among 24 908 subject encounters using propensity score 1:1 matching for ICD lead abandonment or explantation in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) ICD Registry (April 2010 to June 2014). Relative to patients undergoing lead abandonment, patients undergoing lead explantation had more in-hospital procedure-related complications: 2.19% (n=273) versus 3.77% (n=469; P<0.001), respectively. Similarly, patients undergoing lead explantation had slightly higher rates of in-hospital death: 0.21% (n=26) versus 0.64% (n=80; P<0.001), respectively. At 1 year in a Medicare subset for survival, there was a trend of increased mortality in the explantation group (11% versus 8%; P=0.06). In the Medicare subset analyzed for postprocedure complications, there was no difference with respect to 6-month bleeding (4.80% in both the groups), tamponade (0.38% versus 0.58%), infection (1.34% versus 3.07%), upper extremity thrombosis (0.77% versus 0.96%), pulmonary embolism (0.38% versus 0.96%), or urgent surgery (1.15% for both the groups; P>0.05 for all)., Conclusions: After matching, patients undergoing removal of an unused or malfunctioning ICD lead had slightly higher in-hospital complications and deaths than those with a lead abandonment strategy. Although the 1-year mortality risk was slightly higher in the lead explantation group, this difference was not statistically significant and may be explained by chance., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: We examined the association between the use of remote patient monitoring (RPM) of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) and all-cause mortality and rehospitalization among patients undergoing initial ICD implant., Methods and Results: A limited data set was constructed from Boston Scientific ALTITUDE Registry and National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry between January 2006 and March 2010. Vital status was determined using the Social Security Death Master File. All-cause mortality up to 3 years was compared in patients who used RPM with those who did not use RPM. Time-dependent frailty Cox models quantified the association between RPM use and all-cause mortality. Analyses were repeated in subgroups based on age, sex, race, ICD type, indication, and cardiomyopathy pathogenesis. Similar methodology examined the association between RPM use and all-cause rehospitalization in patients enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service patients ≥65 years. The study cohort (n=37,742, age 67±13, 72% male) had a 3-year mortality of 20.9% (median follow-up 832 days). In multivariable analyses, patients using RPM (n=22,023, 58%) had lower risk of mortality compared with those not using RPM (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.64-0.71, P<0.0001). The 3-year all-cause rehospitalization rate in the Medicare population (n=15,254) was 69.3% (median follow-up 922 days). Risk of rehospitalization of patients using RPM (n=9150, 60%) was lower than those not using RPM (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.80-0.84, P<0.0001). Findings were consistent across subgroups., Conclusions: Among patients undergoing initial ICD implant, RPM use is associated with significantly lower risk of adverse outcomes., (© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the benefit of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in women., Background: Clinical trials of primary prevention ICDs enrolled a limited number of women., Methods: Using a propensity score method, we matched 490 women ≥65 years of age who received an ICD during a hospitalization for heart failure in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2007, to 490 ICD-eligible women without an ICD hospitalized for heart failure in the Get With The Guidelines for Heart Failure database from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2009. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality obtained from the Medicare Claims Database. An identical analysis was conducted in men., Results: Median follow-up for patients with an ICD was 4.6 years versus 3.2 years for patients with no ICD. Compared with women with no ICD, those with an ICD were younger and less frequently white. In the matched cohorts, the survival of women with an ICD was significantly longer than that of women without an ICD (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 0.95; p = 0.013). Similarly, men with an ICD had longer survival than men without an ICD (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.73, 95% confidence interval: 0.65 to 0.83; p < 0.0001). There was no interaction between sex and the presence of an ICD with respect to survival (p = 0.44)., Conclusions: Among older women with left ventricular dysfunction, a primary prevention ICD was associated with a significant survival benefit that was nearly identical to that seen in men. These findings support the use of primary prevention ICDs in eligible patients regardless of sex., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Management of antithrombotic agents after implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation is challenging, particularly among patients with atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease., Methods and Results: Using data from National Cardiovascular Data Registry(®) Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Registry(™) linked with Medicare claims data, we identified 25 180 patients with atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease who underwent implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation. Patients were categorized into 5 different groups according to antithrombotic agents prescribed at discharge (any 1 antiplatelet agent [A, n=6538], dual antiplatelet therapy [DA, n=3414], warfarin [n=5264], warfarin+A [n=7994], warfarin+DA [n=1970]). We assessed the primary outcomes occurring within 30 days of hospital discharge. Combinations of DA (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.87), warfarin+A (adjusted HR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.69), and warfarin+DA (adjusted HR: 2.03; 95% CI: 1.49 to 2.77) were associated with a higher bleeding risk. The risk of major adverse cardiovascular events was higher in patients discharged with A (adjusted HR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.33 to 2.16), DA (adjusted HR: 2.17; 95% CI: 1.66 to 2.83), and DA+warfarin (adjusted HR: 1.61; 1.16 to 2.24). There was no association between postdischarge antithrombotic agents and thromboembolic events or device-related complications., Conclusions: Short-term bleeding risk and major adverse cardiovascular events differ with usage patterns of antithrombotic agents, while the risk of thromboembolic events and device-related complications is relatively constant. These data may help clinicians balance risks and benefits when choosing antithrombotic therapy following implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation., (© 2015 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.)

Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) procedures performed later in the day and on weekends/holidays may be associated with adverse events due to a variety of factors including operator fatigue, handoffs, reduced staffing, and limited resource availability. We sought to determine whether patients implanted with ICDs in the afternoon/evening and on weekends/holidays are at increased risk for adverse events., Methods: We studied 148,004 first-time ICD recipients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry-ICD Registry implanted between April 2010 and March 2012. Using hierarchical multivariable logistic regression adjusting for patient, implanting physician, and hospital characteristics, we examined the association between both ICD implant start time and day of week with any complication, a prolonged hospital stay, and mortality., Results: Most ICD implants (52.6%; n = 77,853) were performed in the morning (6 am-12 pm) and during the regular workweek (97.5%; n = 144,266). After multivariable adjustment, ICD recipients implanted in the afternoon (12 pm-5 pm)/evening (5 pm-6 am) compared with the morning experienced a greater odds of any complication (odds ratio [OR] 1.08; 95% CI 1.01-1.15; P = .0168), hospital stay >1 day (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.25-1.33; P < .0001) but not inhospital death (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.88-1.27; P = .5322). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients implanted on weekend/holidays compared with the mid-workweek also experienced a significantly greater odds of hospital stay >1 day (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.29-1.53; P < .0001), no statistically significant differences in total complications (OR 1.14; 95% CI 0.96-1.36; P = .1371), and a trend toward more inhospital death (OR 1.52; 95% CI 0.98-2.38; P = .0642)., Conclusions: In a large, real-world population, ICD recipients implanted in the afternoon/evening and on weekends/holidays more often experienced adverse events, particularly prolonged hospital stays., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In 2010, the National Cardiovascular Data Registry enhanced pediatric, nonatherosclerotic structural heart disease and congenital heart disease (CHD) data collection. This report characterizes CHD and pediatric patients undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation., Methods and Results: In this article, we report implantable cardioverter defibrillator procedures (April 2010 to December 2012) in the registry for 2 cohorts: (1) all patients with CHD (atrial septal defect, ventricular septal defect, tetralogy of Fallot, Ebstein anomaly, transposition of the great vessels, and common ventricle) and (2) patients <21 years. We evaluated indications and characteristics to include transvenous and nontransvenous lead implants, CHD type, and New York Heart Association class. There were 3139 CHD procedures, 1601 for patients <21 years and 126 for CHD <21 years. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator indications for patients with CHD were primary prevention in 1943 (61.9%) and secondary prevention in 1107 (35.2%). Pediatric patients had 935 (58.4%) primary prevention and 588 (36.7%) secondary prevention devices. Primary prevention had higher New York Heart Association class. Nontransvenous age (35.9 ± 23.2 versus 40.1 ± 24.6 years; P=0.05) and nontransvenous height (167.1 ± 18.9 cm; range, 53-193 cm versus 170.4 ± 13.1 cm; range, 61-203 cm; P<0.01) were lower than for transvenous patients. CHD and pediatrics had similar rates of transvenous (97%) and nontransvenous (3%) leads and did not differ from the overall registry. Transposition of the great vessels and common ventricle had higher rates of nontransvenous leads., Conclusions: Primary prevention exceeds secondary prevention for CHD and pediatrics. Nontransvenous lead patients were younger, with higher rates of transposition of the great vessels and common ventricle patients compared with transvenous lead patients., (© 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) reduces morbidity and mortality among selected patients with heart failure in clinical trials. The effectiveness of this therapy in clinical practice has not been well studied., Methods and Results: We compared a cohort of 4471 patients from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) Registry hospitalized primarily for heart failure and who received CRT-D between April 1, 2006, and December 31, 2009, to a historical control cohort of 4888 patients with heart failure without CRT-D from the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE) hospitalized between January 1, 2002, and March 31, 2006. Both registries were linked with Medicare claims to evaluate longitudinal outcomes. We included patients from the ICD Registry with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and QRS duration ≥120 ms who were admitted for heart failure. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare outcomes with and without CRT-D after adjustment for important covariates. After multivariable adjustment, CRT-D was associated with lower 3-year risks of death (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.56; P<0.001), all-cause readmission (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.73; P<0.001), and cardiovascular readmission (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.64; P<0.001). The association of CRT-D with mortality did not vary significantly among subgroups defined by age, sex, race, QRS duration, and optimal medical therapy., Conclusions: CRT-D was associated with lower risks of mortality, all-cause readmission, and cardiovascular readmission than medical therapy alone among patients with heart failure in community practice., (© 2014 The Authors. published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wolters Kluwer.)

Background: Guidelines recommend that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) candidates have an estimated longevity of ≥1 year. Longevity can be affected by chronic kidney disease (CKD)., Methods and Results: Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD registry linked with the Social Security Death Master File, we assessed the rate of death after primary prevention ICD placement between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007, according to CKD stage. Using Cox models, we identified factors associated with death among patients with CKD. Compared with patients without CKD (n=26,056), those with CKD (n=21,226) were older, less commonly men, more often white, and more frequently had comorbid illness. Compared with patients without CKD, patients with a glomerular filtration rate 30 to 60, glomerular filtration rate <30, and end-stage renal disease on dialysis had a higher risk of death after ICD placement (hazard ratio, 2.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-2.18; P<0.0001; hazard ratio, 4.20; 95% confidence interval, 3.92-4.50; P<0.0001; and hazard ratio, 4.80; 95% confidence interval, 4.46-5.17; P<0.0001, respectively). Corresponding 1-year death rates were 4.4%, 9.1%, 20.2%, and 22.4%. Among patients with CKD, factors associated with increased risk of death included CKD severity, age >65 years, heart failure symptoms, diabetes mellitus, lung disease, serum sodium <140 mEq/L, atrial fibrillation or flutter, and a lower ejection fraction., Conclusions: The risk of death after primary prevention ICD placement is proportional to CKD severity. Among patients with CKD, several factors are prognostically significant and could inform clinical decision making on primary prevention ICD candidacy., (© 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.)

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. Of 200 909 implants, 3390 patients (1.7%) developed an ICD infection. The infection rate was 1.4%, 1.5%, and 2.0% for single, dual, and biventricular ICDs, respectively (P<0.001). Generator replacement had a higher rate compared with initial implant (1.9% versus 1.6%, P<0.001). The factors associated with infection were adverse event during implant requiring reintervention (odds ratio [OR], 2.692; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.304-3.145), previous valvular surgery (OR, 1.525; 95% CI, 1.375-1.692), reimplantation for device upgrade, malfunction, or manufacturer advisory (OR, 1.354; 95% CI, 1.196-1.533), renal failure on dialysis (OR, 1.342; 95% CI, 1.123-1.604), chronic lung disease (OR, 1.215; 95% CI, 1.125-1.312), cerebrovascular disease (OR, 1.172; 95% CI, 1.076-1.276), and warfarin (OR, 1.155; 95% CI, 1.060-1.257)., Conclusions: Patients who developed an ICD infection were more likely to have had peri-ICD implant complications requiring early reintervention, previous valve surgery, device replacement for reasons other than battery depletion, and increased comorbidity burden. Efforts should be made to carefully consider when to reenter the pocket at any time other than battery replacement., (© 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Contemporary patterns of use and outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in community practice settings are not well characterized. We assessed temporal trends in patient characteristics and outcomes among older patients undergoing primary prevention ICD therapy in US hospitals between 2006 and 2010., Methods and Results: Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's ICD Registry, we identified Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged ≥65 years and older with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% who underwent primary prevention ICD implantation, including those receiving concomitant cardiac resynchronization therapy between 2006 and 2010 and could be matched to Medicare claims. Outcomes were mortality and hospitalization (all-cause and heart failure) at 180 days, and device-related complications. We used multivariable hierarchical logistic regression to assess temporal trends in outcomes accounting for changes in patient, physician, and hospital characteristics. The cohort included 117 100 patients. Between 2006 and 2010, only modest changes in patient characteristics were noted. Fewer single lead devices and more cardiac resynchronization therapy devices were used over time. Between 2006 and 2010, there were significant improvements in all outcomes, including 6-month all cause mortality (7.1% in 2006, 6.5% 2010; adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.95), 6-month rehospitalization (36.3% in 2006, 33.7% in 2010; adjusted odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.91), and device-related complications (5.8% in 2006, 4.8% in 2010; adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.88)., Conclusions: The clinical characteristics of this national population of Medicare patients undergoing primary prevention ICD implantation were stable between 2006 and 2010. Simultaneous improvements in outcomes suggest meaningful advances in the care for this patient population., (© 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Prior studies have suggested that women have better outcomes than men after cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare mortality after CRT-D implantation by sex, QRS morphology, and duration., Methods: Survival curves and covariate adjusted hazard ratios (HR) were used to assess mortality by sex in 31,892 CRT-D patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR), implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) registry between 2006 and 2009, with up to 5 years' follow-up (median 2.9 years, interquartile range: 2.0 to 3.9 years). Patients were grouped by QRS morphology and 10-ms increments in QRS duration., Results: Among patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB), women had a 21% lower mortality risk than men (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.84; p < 0.001); however, there was no sex difference in non-LBBB (HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.06; p = 0.37). Longer QRS duration was associated with better survival in both sexes with LBBB, but not in patients without LBBB. Compared with women with LBBB and QRS of 120 to 129 ms, women with LBBB and QRS of 140 to 149 ms had a 27% lower mortality (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.88; p = 0.001); this difference was 18% in men (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.93; p = 0.003). Mortality in LBBB and QRS of 150 ms or longer compared with those with LBBB and QRS of 120 to 129 ms was similar between sexes (HR: 0.61 to 0.68; p < 0.001 for women and HR: 0.58 to 0.66; p < 0.001 for men). Sex interactions within 10-ms groups were not significant., Conclusions: Among patients with LBBB who received CRT-D, mortality is lower in women than men. Additionally, longer QRS duration in LBBB is associated with better survival in both sexes. In contrast, there is no sex difference in patients without LBBB, regardless of QRS duration. Further studies should include a non-CRT comparator group to confirm these findings., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Repeat implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) procedures are increasing and may be associated with higher risks for complications. To provide more information for clinical decision making, especially in light of recent defibrillator advisories, we examined a large national cohort to characterize repeat ICD procedural outcomes. Using data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ICD Registry), we compared patient characteristics, reasons for ICD implantation, and associated in-hospital adverse events among 92,751 patients receiving their first device and 81,748 patients who underwent repeat procedures with (n = 31,057) and without (n = 50,691) lead involvement. Hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the predictors of in-hospital complications. Complication rates were higher in those who underwent repeat ICD procedures with lead involvement (lead implantation or revision), compared with patients who underwent initial implants (3.2% vs 2.6%, p <0.001) or versus those with pocket-only (e.g., generator change only) procedures (3.2% vs 0.6%, p <0.001). There were significantly more in-hospital deaths, lead dislodgements, and infections requiring antibiotics in the lead involvement cohort. Compared with those who had a pocket-only procedure, the multivariable adjusted odds ratio of any complication were increased at 4.20 (95% confidence interval: 3.66 to 4.82, p <0.001) in patients who underwent repeat procedures with lead involvement excluding lead extraction or 7.11 (95% confidence interval: 5.96 to 8.48, p <0.001) in procedures involving lead extractions. In conclusion, repeat ICD procedures, when involving the addition or revision of a lead with or without concurrent lead extraction, are associated with higher complication rates compared with initial implants and with those who underwent pocket-only procedures., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)