Association of Single- vs Dual-Chamber ICDs With Mortality, Readmissions, and Complications Among Patients Receiving an ICD for Primary Prevention

• Autores: Pamela N. Peterson, Paul D. Varosy, Paul A. Heidenreich
• Localización: JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association, ISSN 0098-7484, Vol. 309, Nº. 19, 2013, págs. 2025-2034
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • 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.