Search

Background Objective Methods Results Conclusion The annual incidence of sudden cardiac death is over 300,000 in the United States (US). Historically, inpatient implantation of secondary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has been variable and subject to healthcare disparities.To evaluate contemporary practice trends of inpatient secondary prevention ICD implants within the US on the basis of race, sex, and socioeconomic status (SES).The study is a retrospective analysis of the National Inpatient Sample from 2016 to 2020 of adult discharges with a primary diagnosis of ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular flutter, and fibrillation (VF). Adjusted ICD implantation rates based on race, sex, and SES and associated temporal trends were calculated using multivariate regression.A total of 193,600 primary VT/VF discharges in the NIS were included in the cohort, of which 57,895 (29.9%) had ICD placement. There was a significant racial and ethnic disparity in ICD placement for Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American patients as compared to White patients; adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.86 [p < .01], 0.90 [p  =  .03], 0.81[p < .01], 0.45 [p < .01], respectively. Female patients were also less likely to receive an ICD compared to male patients (aOR: 0.75, p < .01). Disparities in ICD placement remained stable over the study period (ptrend ≥ .05 in all races, both sexes and income categories).Racial, sex, and SES disparities persisted for secondary prevention ICD implants in the US. An investigation into contributing factors and subsequent approaches are needed to address the modifiable causes of disparities in ICD implantation as these trends have not improved compared to historic data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) shocks are a lifesaving therapy, they can negatively affect the patient's quality of life. Amiodarone is commonly combined with β‐blockers (BB) in ICD recipients. However, this combination therapy's efficacy in preventing shocks compared to standard BB monotherapy is not well studied. The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis is to determine if combined amiodarone and BB therapy improves prevention of ICD shock delivery compared to BB monotherapy. We performed a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases, for studies that assess the impact of amiodarone and BB versus BB monotherapy in patients with an ICD. The primary outcome was a total number of ICD shocks delivered by the end of the study period. Four studies: three retrospective studies and one randomized controlled trial (RCT), with a total of 5818 patients with ICDs, were included in the analysis. Follow‐up periods ranged from 1 to 5 years. The combined amiodarone and BB group was not associated with a significantly lower number of ICD shocks compared to the BB monotherapy group (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44‐1.31; P =.32). A combination therapy of amiodarone and BB was not associated with any further reduction in ICD shocks, hospitalizations, or mortality. Additional RCTs are recommended to further validate our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]