Key result
Geographic region strongly predicted dual-chamber ICD use among patients without a pacing indication, ranging from 36.4% in New England to 66.4% in the Pacific region (OR 5.25; 95% CI 3.35-8.21).
Why the study?
What is the hospital-level variation in the use of dual-chamber ICDs for primary prevention in patients without a pacing indication?
Population
87,115 patients receiving a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator from 2006 through 2009…
Comparison
Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillat… vs Single-chamber ICD (implied by variation in use)
Design
Cross-sectional
Loading...
Marked geographic variation in dual-chamber ICD use without pacing indication highlights unexplained practice differences; leaves open optimal selection criteria.
Cross-Sectional (n=87,115)
Yes
What is the hospital-level variation in the use of dual-chamber ICDs for primary prevention in patients without a pacing indication?
Odds Ratio: 5.25 (95% CI 3.35–8.21)
Absolute Event Rate: 66.4% vs 36.4%
There is marked hospital-level variation in the use of dual-chamber ICDs for primary prevention in patients without a pacing indication, independent of patient factors.
A 2012 study conducted a cross-sectional in Primary prevention ICD without pacing indication (n=87,115). Geographic region (Pacific) vs. Geographic region (New England) was evaluated on Use of a dual-chamber ICD (OR 5.25, 95% CI 3.35-8.21). Geographic region strongly predicted dual-chamber ICD use among patients without a pacing indication, ranging from 36.4% in New England to 66.4% in the Pacific region (OR 5.25; 95% CI 3.35-8.21).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: