Key result
ICD implantation by very-low-volume operators (≤1 per year) was associated with increased risks of mortality (RR 1.8; 95% CI 1.3-2.4) and cardiac complications (RR 4.7; 95% CI 3.3-6.8).
Why the study?
Does ICD implantation by very-low-volume operators increase the risk of mortality and complications compared to frequent operators in patients undergoing ICD implantation?
Population
38,992 New York state residents undergoing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation between 1997…
Comparison
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator… vs Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
90 days and 1 year
Authors
Loading...
May warrant caution with very-low-volume ICD operators; leaves open whether volume thresholds improve outcomes in prospective studies.
Cohort (n=38,992)
Yes
Does ICD implantation by very-low-volume operators increase the risk of mortality and complications compared to frequent operators in patients undergoing ICD implantation?
Relative Risk: 1.8 (95% CI 1.3–2.4)
ICD implantation by very-low-volume operators is associated with significantly higher risks of mortality and cardiac complications, highlighting the need for minimum volume standards and safe implementation strategies for new technologies.
Sedrakyan et al. (2011) conducted a cohort in ICD implantation (n=38,992). Very-low-volume operators (≤1 ICD/year) vs. Operators who frequently performed ICD implantation was evaluated on Mortality (RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.4). ICD implantation by very-low-volume operators (≤1 per year) was associated with increased risks of mortality (RR 1.8; 95% CI 1.3-2.4) and cardiac complications (RR 4.7; 95% CI 3.3-6.8).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: