• Something wrong with this record ?

Studie posuzuje vhodné užití ICD v primární prevenci
[Non-evidence-based ICD implantations in the United States]

Al-Khatib SM, et al.

. 2011 ; 5 (2) : 12-13.

Language Czech Country Czech Republic

Document type Comparative Study

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc11024118

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.

Non-evidence-based ICD implantations in the United States

Recenze v:

Komentář [k článku Studie posuzuje vhodné užití ICD v primární prevenci].

000      
00000naa 2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc11024118
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20111210215802.0
008      
110808s2011 xr e cze||
009      
AR
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $c ABA008 $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a cze $b eng
044    __
$a xr
100    1_
$a Al-Khatib, Sana M. $7 gn_A_00004352
245    10
$a Studie posuzuje vhodné užití ICD v primární prevenci / $c Al-Khatib SM, et al.
246    11
$a Non-evidence-based ICD implantations in the United States
314    __
$a Duke Clinical Research Institute, PO Box 17969, Durham, NC 27715, USA. alkha001@mc.duke.edu
520    9_
$a 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.
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a kardiologie $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D002309
650    _2
$a kohortové studie $7 D015331
650    _2
$a koronární bypass $7 D001026
650    _2
$a náhlá srdeční smrt $x etiologie $x prevence a kontrola $7 D016757
650    _2
$a defibrilátory implantabilní $x využití $7 D017147
650    _2
$a medicína založená na důkazech $7 D019317
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a dodržování směrnic $7 D019983
650    _2
$a srdeční selhání $x komplikace $7 D006333
650    _2
$a mortalita v nemocnicích $7 D017052
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a infarkt myokardu $x komplikace $7 D009203
650    _2
$a výběr pacientů $7 D018579
650    _2
$a lékařská praxe - způsoby provádění $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D010818
650    _2
$a primární prevence $7 D011322
650    _2
$a registrace $7 D012042
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
651    _2
$a Spojené státy americké $7 D014481
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
773    0_
$w MED00012706 $t Clinical cardiology alert $g Roč. 5, č. 2 (2011), s. 12-13 $x 1213-2586
787    18
$w bmc11024120 $i Recenze v: $t Komentář [k článku Studie posuzuje vhodné užití ICD v primární prevenci]
910    __
$a ABA008 $b B 2242 $c 407 a $y 7
990    __
$a 20110805142312 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20110831114810 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 868787 $s 734062
BAS    __
$a 3
BMC    __
$a 2011 $b 5 $c 2 $d 12-13 $m Clinical Cardiology Alert $x MED00012706
LZP    __
$a 2011-14/mkme

Find record