TEMPORAL TRENDS IN AND FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SINGLE VERSUS DUAL COIL IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER-DEFIBRILLATOR LEADS: DATA FROM THE NCDR ICD REGISTRY

TEMPORAL TRENDS IN AND FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SINGLE VERSUS DUAL COIL IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER-DEFIBRILLATOR LEADS: DATA FROM THE NCDR ICD REGISTRY

A331 JACC March 17, 2015 Volume 65, Issue 10S Arrhythmias and Clinical EP Temporal Trends in and Factors Associated with Single Versus Dual Coil Impl...

489KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views

Recommend Documents

Single- and Dual-Coil Defibrillator Leads
Download high-res image (173KB)Download full-size image

Comparison of Single-Coil and Dual-Coil Implantable Defibrillators
The purpose of this investigation was to conduct a meta-analysis of studies comparing defibrillation threshold (DFT) and

Failure Rates of Single- Versus Dual-Coil Nonrecalled Sprint Quattro Defibrillator Leads
Electrical failure is more common in single-coil compared with dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) le

Factors associated with rhythm control treatment decisions in patients with atrial fibrillation—Insights from the NCDR PINNACLE registry
Decisions to use rhythm control in atrial fibrillation (AF) should generally be dictated by patient factors, such as qua

Gender and outcomes after primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: Findings from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR)
Clinical trials have demonstrated the benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for the primary preventi

Tryptase levels in children presenting with anaphylaxis: Temporal trends and associated factors
The diagnosis of anaphylaxis currently relies on suggestive clinical history after exposure to a potential triggering fa

A331 JACC March 17, 2015 Volume 65, Issue 10S

Arrhythmias and Clinical EP Temporal Trends in and Factors Associated with Single Versus Dual Coil Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Leads: Data from the NCDR ICD Registry Poster Contributions Poster Hall B1 Saturday, March 14, 2015, 10:00 a.m.-10:45 a.m. Session Title: Contemporary Challenges in Cardiac Implantable Device Management Abstract Category: 6. Arrhythmias and Clinical EP: Devices Presentation Number: 1116-268 Authors: Sean Pokorney, Craig Parzynski, James Daubert, Donald Hegland, Paul Varosy, Jeptha Curtis, Sana Al-Khatib, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

Background: There are no data that dual coil (DC) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads are associated with lower mortality, and DC leads are more difficult to extract than single coil leads. The objective of this analysis is to evaluate temporal trends in and factors associated with DC lead use.

Methods: There were 275,437 patients at 1,513 hospitals that underwent defibrillator lead implantation in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry’s (NCDR®) ICD Registry™ between April 2010 and December 2013. Using latent class growth curve analysis, hospitals were classified into groups based on frequency of DC lead use over time: low, decreasing, or high use.

Results: Nationally the use of DC ICD leads has decreased over time (Figure) from nearly 90% of all ICD leads in early 2010 to roughly 70% of leads in 2013. Hospitals in the low (221) or decreasing use (426) versus high use (863) cohorts were more frequently academic (39% or 45% vs 29%) and non-profit (77% or 75% vs 64%). Hospitals in the low or decreasing use compared to high use cohorts had more ICDs implanted by electrophysiologists (93% or 83% vs 50%) and performed more extractions (median of 5 or 11 vs 2). Patients had similar clinical characteristics across all three groups.

Conclusion: Use of DC ICD leads decreased over time, but continues to represent the majority of implants in the US. Hospital level factors are associated with use of DC leads, while patient characteristics are similar across institutions and are not associated with DC use.