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
. 2017 Nov 9;6(11):e006937.
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.117.006937.

Comparison of Inappropriate Shocks and Other Health Outcomes Between Single- and Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Results From the Cardiovascular Research Network Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

Pamela N Peterson  1   2   3 , Robert T Greenlee  4   5 , Alan S Go  6   7   8 , David J Magid  2   3 , Andrea Cassidy-Bushrow  9 , Romel Garcia-Montilla  4 , Karen A Glenn  3 , Jerry H Gurwitz  10 , Stephen C Hammill  11 , John Hayes  4 , Alan Kadish  12 , Kristi Reynolds  13 , Param Sharma  4 , David H Smith  14 , Paul D Varosy  2   3   15 , Humberto Vidaillet  4 , Chan X Zeng  3 , Sharon-Lise T Normand  16   17 , Frederick A Masoudi  2   3
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of Inappropriate Shocks and Other Health Outcomes Between Single- and Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Results From the Cardiovascular Research Network Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

Pamela N Peterson et al. J Am Heart Assoc. .

Abstract

Background: In US clinical practice, many patients who undergo placement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death receive dual-chamber devices. The superiority of dual-chamber over single-chamber devices in reducing the risk of inappropriate ICD shocks in clinical practice has not been established. The objective of this study was to compare risk of adverse outcomes, including inappropriate shocks, between single- and dual-chamber ICDs for primary prevention.

Methods and results: We identified patients receiving a single- or dual-chamber ICD for primary prevention who did not have an indication for pacing from 15 hospitals within 7 integrated health delivery systems in the Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators from 2006 to 2009. The primary outcome was time to first inappropriate shock. ICD shocks were adjudicated for appropriateness. Other outcomes included all-cause hospitalization, heart failure hospitalization, and death. Patient, clinician, and hospital-level factors were accounted for using propensity score weighting methods. Among 1042 patients without pacing indications, 54.0% (n=563) received a single-chamber device and 46.0% (n=479) received a dual-chamber device. In a propensity-weighted analysis, device type was not significantly associated with inappropriate shock (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.38 [P=0.65]), all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.21 [P=0.76]), heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.21 [P=0.59]), or death (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.53 [P=0.17]).

Conclusions: Among patients who received an ICD for primary prevention without indications for pacing, dual-chamber devices were not associated with lower risk of inappropriate shock or differences in hospitalization or death compared with single-chamber devices. This study does not justify the use of dual-chamber devices to minimize inappropriate shocks.

Keywords: defibrillator shocks; implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators; outcomes research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Assembly of study cohort of adults receiving single‐ vs dual‐chamber implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) therapy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death and no indication for pacing.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cumulative incidence curves of time to each outcome by device type. ICD indicates implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    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;58:1007–1013. - PubMed
    1. Matlock DD, Peterson PN, Wang Y, Curtis JP, Reynolds MR, Varosy PD, Masoudi FA. Variation in use of dual‐chamber implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators: results from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:634–641. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Peterson PN, Varosy PD, Heidenreich PA, Wang Y, Dewland TA, Curtis JP, Go AS, Greenlee RT, Magid DJ, Normand SL, Masoudi FA. Association of single‐ vs dual‐chamber ICDs with mortality, readmissions, and complications among patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention. JAMA. 2013;309:2025–2034. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schron EB, Exner DV, Yao Q, Jenkins LS, Steinberg JS, Cook JR, Kutalek SP, Friedman PL, Bubien RS, Page RL, Powell J. Quality of life in the antiarrhythmics versus implantable defibrillators trial: impact of therapy and influence of adverse symptoms and defibrillator shocks. Circulation. 2002;105:589–594. - PubMed
    1. Bourke JP, Turkington D, Thomas G, McComb JM, Tynan M. Florid psychopathology in patients receiving shocks from implanted cardioverter‐defibrillators. Heart. 1997;78:581–583. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources