Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 5, 2026
A New Single Chamber Implantable Defibrillator with Atrial Sensing: A Practical Demonstration of Sensing and Ease of Implantation
Published on: February 28, 2012
Non-evidence-based ICD implantations in the United States
Sana M Al-Khatib1, Anne Hellkamp, Jeptha Curtis
1Duke Clinical Research Institute, PO Box 17969, Durham, NC 27715, USA. alkha001@mc.duke.edu
Context:
Practice guidelines do not recommend use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention in patients recovering from a myocardial infarction or coronary artery bypass graft surgery and those with severe heart failure symptoms or a recent diagnosis of heart failure.
Objective:
To determine the number, characteristics, and in-hospital outcomes of patients who receive a non-evidence-based ICD and examine the distribution of these implants by site, physician specialty, and year of procedure.
Design, Setting, And Patients:
Retrospective cohort study of cases submitted to the National Cardiovascular Data Registry-ICD Registry between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2009.
Main Outcome Measure:
In-hospital outcomes.
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 received an evidence-based ICD had a significantly higher risk of in-hospital death (0.57% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.48%-0.66%] vs 0.18% [95% CI, 0.15%-0.20%]; P <.001) and any postprocedure complication (3.23% [95% CI, 3.01%-3.45%] vs 2.41% [95% CI, 2.31%-2.51%]; P <.001). There was substantial variation in non-evidence-based ICDs by site. The rate of non-evidence-based ICD implants was significantly lower for electrophysiologists (20.8%; 95% CI, 20.5%-21.1%) than nonelectrophysiologists (24.8% [95% CI, 24.2%-25.3%] for nonelectrophysiologist cardiologists; 36.1% [95% CI, 34.3%-38.0%] for thoracic surgeons; and 24.9% [95% CI, 23.8%-25.9%] for other specialties) (P<.001 for all comparisons). There was no clear decrease in the rate of non-evidence-based ICDs over time (24.5% [6908/28,233] in 2006, 21.8% [7395/33,965] in 2007, 22.0% [7245/32,960] in 2008, and 21.7% [3597/16,549] in 2009; P <.001 for trend from 2006-2009 and P = .94 for trend from 2007-2009).
Conclusion:
Among patients with ICD implants in this registry, 22.5% did not meet evidence-based criteria for implantation.
