Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2013 May 15;309(19):2025-34.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.4982.

Association of single- vs dual-chamber ICDs with mortality, readmissions, and complications among patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention

Pamela N Peterson  1 , Paul D Varosy, Paul A Heidenreich, Yongfei Wang, Thomas A Dewland, Jeptha P Curtis, Alan S Go, Robert T Greenlee, David J Magid, Sharon-Lise T Normand, Frederick A Masoudi
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Association of single- vs dual-chamber ICDs with mortality, readmissions, and complications among patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention

Pamela N Peterson et al. JAMA. .

Abstract

Importance: Randomized trials of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention predominantly used single-chamber devices. In clinical practice, patients often receive dual-chamber ICDs, even without clear indications for pacing. The outcomes of dual- vs single-chamber devices are uncertain.

Objective: To compare outcomes of single- and dual-chamber ICDs for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death.

Design, setting, and participants: Retrospective cohort study of admissions in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's (NCDR) ICD registry from 2006-2009 that could be linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services fee-for-service Medicare claims data. Patients were included if they received an ICD for primary prevention and did not have a documented indication for pacing.

Main outcomes and measures: Adjusted risks of 1-year mortality, all-cause readmission, heart failure readmission, and device-related complications within 90 days were estimated with propensity-score matching based on patient, clinician, and hospital factors.

Results: Among 32,034 patients, 12,246 (38%) received a single-chamber device and 19,788 (62%) received a dual-chamber device. In a propensity-matched cohort, rates of complications were lower for single-chamber devices (3.51% vs 4.72%; P < .001; risk difference, -1.20 [95% CI, -1.72 to -0.69]), but device type was not significantly associated with 1-year mortality (unadjusted rate, 9.85% vs 9.77%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.07]; P = .79), 1-year all-cause hospitalization (unadjusted rate, 43.86% vs 44.83%; HR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.97-1.04]; P = .82), or hospitalization for heart failure (unadjusted rate, 14.73% vs 15.38%; HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.99-1.12]; P = .19).

Conclusions and relevance: Among patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention without indications for pacing, the use of a dual-chamber device compared with a single-chamber device was associated with a higher risk of device-related complications and similar 1-year mortality and hospitalization outcomes. Reasons for preferentially using dual-chamber ICDs in this setting remains unclear.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study population.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of propensity scores for receipt of dual chamber device among single and dual chamber groups. The bin interval used was 0.05 with a range from 0.10–0.95. Bin limits were >0 to ≤0.10; >0.10 to ≤0.15, etc.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. [Accessed November 2, 2012];NCD for Implantable Automatic Defibrillators (20.4) Available at: URL: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd.
    1. Epstein AE, DiMarco JP, Ellenbogen KA, et al. ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for Device-Based Therapy of Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices): developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation. 2008 May 27;117(21):e350–e408. - PubMed
    1. Dewland TA, Pellegrini CN, Wang Y, Marcus GM, Keung E, Varosy PD. Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator selection is associated with increased complication rates and mortality among patients enrolled in the NCDR implantable cardioverter-defibrillator registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Aug 30;58(10):1007–13. - PubMed
    1. Matlock DD, Peterson PN, Wang Y, et al. Variation in Use of Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Results From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Apr 23;172(8):634–41. - PMC - PubMed
    1. McClellan MB, Tunis SR. Medicare Coverage of ICDs. N Engl J Med. 2005 Jan 20;352(3):222–4. - PubMed

Publication types