These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Low referral rate for prophylactic implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators in a tertiary care medical center.
    Author: Bradfield J, Warner A, Bersohn MM.
    Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol; 2009 Mar; 32 Suppl 1():S194-7. PubMed ID: 19250092.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention became standard of care after the publication of the second Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT-II) and Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT). OBJECTIVE: To determine the percentage of patients in a Veterans Affairs medical center appropriately referred for primary prophylaxis ICD and to further categorize the reasons patients are not being referred. METHODS: Echocardiograms obtained since the release of MADIT-II in 2002 were searched for a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < or = 35% and < or =30%. We randomly selected 120 patients per year from 2002 to 2006, for a total of 600 patients in each group. Data were reviewed to determine the number of ICD recipients and the reasons patients were not referred. RESULTS: In the LVEF < or = 35% group an ICD was implanted in 28% of 392 eligible patients. Nonreferral (58%) was the most common reason that eligible patients did not receive an ICD. Patients were not referred for ICD because of appropriate contraindications in 26% of cases. Overall mortality was 29% (15% with and 31% without ICD). In the LVEF < or =30% group an ICD was implanted in 33% of 388 eligible patients. Nonreferral (51%) was the most common reason that eligible patients did not receive an ICD. Patients were not referred for ICD because of appropriate contraindications in 24% of cases. Overall mortality was 28% (18% with and 32% without ICD). CONCLUSIONS: After the publication of MADIT-II and SCD-HeFT, only 42% of eligible patients with LVEF < or = 35% and 49% of patients with LVEF < or =30% were offered a potentially life-saving ICD between 2002 and 2006 in our medical center, sometimes with considerable delay.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]