Key result
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks led to healthcare utilization in 46% of events within 7 days, with similar expenditures for appropriate and inappropriate shocks.
Why the study?
What are the healthcare utilization and expenditures associated with appropriate and inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks?
Cohort (n=10,266)
Yes
What are the healthcare utilization and expenditures associated with appropriate and inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
ICD shocks, whether appropriate or inappropriate, trigger substantial healthcare utilization and invasive procedures, highlighting the potential for cost savings through shock reduction strategies.
BACKGROUND: In patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, healthcare utilization (HCU) and expenditures related to shocks have not been quantified. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators identified from commercial and Medicare supplemental claims databases linked to adjudicated shock events from remote monitoring data. A shock event was defined as ≥1 spontaneous shocks delivered by an implanted device. Shock-related HCU was ascertained from inpatient and outpatient claims within 7 days following a shock event. Shock events were adjudicated and classified as inappropriate or appropriate, and HCU and expenditures, stratified by shock type, were quantified. Of 10 266 linked patients, 963 (9.4%) patients (61.3±13.6 years; 81% male) had 1885 shock events (56% appropriate, 38% inappropriate, and 6% indeterminate). Of these events, 867 (46%) had shock-related HCU (14% inpatient and 32% outpatient). After shocks, inpatient cardiovascular procedures were common, including echocardiography (59%), electrophysiology study or ablation (34%), stress testing (16%), and lead revision (11%). Cardiac catheterization was common (71% and 51%), but percutaneous coronary intervention was low (6.5% and 5.0%) after appropriate and inappropriate shocks. Expenditures related to appropriate and inappropriate shocks were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: After implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock, related HCU was common, with 1 in 3 shock events followed by outpatient HCU and 1 in 7 followed by hospitalization. Use of invasive cardiovascular procedures was substantial, even after inappropriate shocks, which comprised 38% of all shocks. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks seem to trigger a cascade of health care. Strategies to reduce shocks could result in cost savings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Turakhia et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (n=10,266). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks vs. Appropriate vs inappropriate shocks was evaluated on Shock-related healthcare utilization (inpatient and outpatient) within 7 days. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks led to healthcare utilization in 46% of events within 7 days, with similar expenditures for appropriate and inappropriate shocks.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: