Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Non–Evidence-Based ICD Implantations in the United States

Non–Evidence-Based ICD Implantations in the United States ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION Non–Evidence-Based ICD Implantations in the United States Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, MHS Context Practice guidelines do not recommend use of an implantable cardioverter- defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention in patients recovering from a myocardial in- Anne Hellkamp, MS farction or coronary artery bypass graft surgery and those with severe heart failure Jeptha Curtis, MD symptoms or a recent diagnosis of heart failure. Daniel Mark, MD, MPH Objective To determine the number, characteristics, and in-hospital outcomes of Eric Peterson, MD patients who receive a non–evidence-based ICD and examine the distribution of these implants by site, physician specialty, and year of procedure. Gillian D. Sanders, PhD Design, Setting, and Patients Retrospective cohort study of cases submitted to Paul A. Heidenreich, MD, MS the National Cardiovascular Data Registry-ICD Registry between January 1, 2006, and Adrian F. Hernandez, MD, MHS June 30, 2009. Lesley H. Curtis, PhD Main Outcome Measure In-hospital outcomes. Stephen Hammill, MD Results Of 111 707 patients, 25 145 received non–evidence-based ICD implants (22.5%). Patients who received a non–evidence-based ICD compared with those who EVERAL RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED received an evidence-based ICD had a significantly higher risk of in-hospital death (0.57% trials have proven the efficacy of [95% confidence http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA American Medical Association

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/non-evidence-based-icd-implantations-in-the-united-states-BHzkl2ZcDF
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright 2011 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
ISSN
0098-7484
eISSN
1538-3598
DOI
10.1001/jama.2010.1915
pmid
21205965
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION Non–Evidence-Based ICD Implantations in the United States Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, MHS Context Practice guidelines do not recommend use of an implantable cardioverter- defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention in patients recovering from a myocardial in- Anne Hellkamp, MS farction or coronary artery bypass graft surgery and those with severe heart failure Jeptha Curtis, MD symptoms or a recent diagnosis of heart failure. Daniel Mark, MD, MPH Objective To determine the number, characteristics, and in-hospital outcomes of Eric Peterson, MD patients who receive a non–evidence-based ICD and examine the distribution of these implants by site, physician specialty, and year of procedure. Gillian D. Sanders, PhD Design, Setting, and Patients Retrospective cohort study of cases submitted to Paul A. Heidenreich, MD, MS the National Cardiovascular Data Registry-ICD Registry between January 1, 2006, and Adrian F. Hernandez, MD, MHS June 30, 2009. Lesley H. Curtis, PhD Main Outcome Measure In-hospital outcomes. Stephen Hammill, MD Results Of 111 707 patients, 25 145 received non–evidence-based ICD implants (22.5%). Patients who received a non–evidence-based ICD compared with those who EVERAL RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED received an evidence-based ICD had a significantly higher risk of in-hospital death (0.57% trials have proven the efficacy of [95% confidence

Journal

JAMAAmerican Medical Association

Published: Jan 5, 2011

References