Trends in the use of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy device in advancing age: Analysis of the Japan cardiac device treatment registry database

Figures

• 

  FIGURE 1. Japanese trends in de novo CIEDs implantation. The number of new implantations of ICD (gray bar)/CRT‐D (blue bar)/CRT‐P (orange bar) in each year is shown based on the data from (A) Japan Arrhythmia Device Industry Association (JADIA) and (B) Japan cardiac device treatment registry (JCDTR). Percentage of registration of the JCDTR to that of JADIA (JCDTR/JADIA ratio) is given as line graphs (B).

• 

  FIGURE 2. Proportion of different age groups in CIED implantation. Groups of patients aged <75 y (blue bar), aged 75‐84 y (orange bar) and aged ≧85 y (gray bar) are shown as the percentages for ICD, CRT‐D and CRT‐P implantation. The age distribution was significantly different among CIED implantations (P < .0001).

• 

  FIGURE 3. Age‐stratified CIEDs implant trends. Implantation trends in the patient groups, aged <75 y (blue bar), aged 75‐84 y (orange bar) and aged ≧85 y (gray bar), and the percentage of patients aged ≧75 y (yellow line) is given for ICD (A), CRT‐D (B) and CRT‐P (C) implantation. The percentage of patients aged ≧75 y increased significantly in CRT‐D implantation (P < .0001). The increase was marginal in ICD implantation (P = .052) and CRT‐P implantation (P = .17).

• 

  FIGURE 4. Age‐stratified CIED implant trends in ischemic and nonischemic etiologies. Implantation trends in three patient groups, aged <75 y (blue bar), aged 75‐84 y (orange bar) and aged ≧85 y (gray bar), and the percentage of patients aged ≧75 y (yellow line) are given for ischemic (left) and nonischemic (right) patients with ICD (A), CRT‐D (B) and CRT‐P (C) implantation. The percentage of patients aged ≧75 y increased significantly in nonischemic ICD (right panel in A, P = .0008) and CRT‐D (right panel in B, P = .0001) implantation. The increase was not significant in nonischemic CRT‐P implantation (right panel in C, P = .21). There was no statistical significant increase in age‐stratified implant trends for ischemic ICD, CRT‐D, and CRT‐P implantation (left panels in A, B and C).

• 

  FIGURE 5. Age‐stratified CIED implant trends in primary prevention and secondary prevention for sudden cardiac death. Implantation trends in three patient groups, aged <75 y (blue bar), aged 75‐84 y (orange bar) and aged ≧85 y (gray bar), and the percentage of patients aged ≧75 y (yellow line) are given for primary prevention (left) and secondary prevention (right) ICD (A) and CRT‐D (B) implantation. The percentage of patients aged ≧75 y increased significantly only in primary prevention CRT‐D implantation (left panel in B, P = .012). The increase in the percentage of patients aged ≧75 y was marginal in primary prevention ICD implantation (left panel in A, P = .059).