Association of Physician Specialty With Long-Term Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Complication and Reoperations Rates.

Background Patients undergoing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations have high rates of long-term device-related complications and reoperations. Whether physician specialty training is associated with differences in long-term outcomes following ICD implantation is unclear. Methods and Results We linked data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry with Medicare fee-for-service claims to identify physicians who performed ≥10 index ICDs from 2006 to 2009. We used data from the American Board of Medical Specialties to group the specialty of the implanting physician into mutually exclusive categories: electrophysiologists, interventional cardiologists, general cardiologists, thoracic surgeons, and other specialties. Primary outcomes were long-term device-related complications requiring reoperations or hospitalizations and reoperations for reasons other than complications. We compared the cumulative incidence rates and case-mix adjusted rates of long-term outcomes of index ICD implantations across physician specialties. Our analysis had a median follow-up of 47 months and included 107 966 index ICD implantations. Electrophysiologists had the lowest rates of incident long-term device-related complications (14.1%; interventional cardiologists, 15.3%; general cardiologists, 15.4%; thoracic surgeons, 16.4%; other specialists, 15.2%; P<0.001) and reoperations for reasons other than complications (electrophysiologists, 16.7%; interventional cardiologists, 17.0%; general cardiologists, 18.0%; thoracic surgeons, 18.4%; other specialists, 18.0%; P<0.001). Compared with patients whose ICDs were implanted by electrophysiologists, patients with implantations performed by nonelectrophysiologists were at higher risk of having long-term device-related complications (relative risk for interventional cardiologists: 1.16 [95% CI, 1.08-1.25]; general cardiologists: 1.13 [1.08-1.18]; thoracic surgeons: 1.20 [1.06-1.37]; all P<0.001, but not other specialists: 1.08 [0.99-1.17]; P=0.07). Compared to patients with implantations performed by electrophysiologists, patients with implantations performed by general cardiologists and thoracic surgeons were at higher risk of reoperation for noncomplication causes (relative risk for general cardiologists: 1.10 [1.05-1.15]; thoracic surgeons: 1.16 [1.00-1.33]; both P<0.05). Conclusions Patients with ICD implantations performed by electrophysiologists had the lowest risks of having long-term device-related complications and reoperations for noncomplication causes. Consideration of physician specialty before ICD implantation may represent an opportunity to minimize long-term adverse outcomes.

[1]  Changbin Guo.  Cause-Specific Analysis of Competing Risks Using the PHREG Procedure , 2018 .

[2]  N. Hawkins,et al.  Long-term complications, reoperations and survival following cardioverter-defibrillator implant , 2017, Heart.

[3]  I. Ranasinghe,et al.  Long-Term Risk for Device-Related Complications and Reoperations After Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation , 2016, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  M. Josephson,et al.  Mortality risk following replacement implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation at end of battery life: results from the NCDR. , 2014, Heart rhythm.

[5]  G. Johnston,et al.  Using the PHREG Procedure to Analyze Competing-Risks Data , 2014 .

[6]  S. Chaudhry,et al.  Use of Remote Monitoring of Newly Implanted Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Insights From the Patient Related Determinants of ICD Remote Monitoring (PREDICT RM) Study , 2013, Circulation.

[7]  R. Noone.  The American Board of Medical Specialties. , 2013, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[8]  P. Heidenreich,et al.  Physician Procedure Volume and Complications of Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation , 2012, Circulation.

[9]  Sana M. Al-Khatib,et al.  Non-evidence-based ICD implantations in the United States. , 2011, JAMA.

[10]  M. Chung,et al.  Complication Rates Associated With Pacemaker or Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Generator Replacements and Upgrade Procedures: Results From the REPLACE Registry , 2010, Circulation.

[11]  B. Lindsay,et al.  Review of the ICD Registry's third year, expansion to include lead data and pediatric ICD procedures, and role for measuring performance. , 2009, Heart rhythm.

[12]  H. Krumholz,et al.  Association of physician certification and outcomes among patients receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. , 2009, JAMA.

[13]  J. Healey,et al.  Outcome of advisory implantable cardioverter-defibrillator replacement: one-year follow-up. , 2008, Heart rhythm.

[14]  Complication Risk with Pulse Generator Change: Implications When Reacting to a Device Advisory or Recall , 2007 .

[15]  R. Brindis,et al.  The National ICD Registry: now and into the future. , 2006, Heart rhythm.

[16]  Douglas L Packer,et al.  Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  S. Goodman,et al.  Cardiac resynchronization and death from progressive heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. , 2003, JAMA.

[18]  J. Oss,et al.  PROPHYLACTIC IMPLANTATION OF A DEFIBRILLATOR IN PATIENTS WITH MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION AND REDUCED EJECTION FRACTION , 2002 .

[19]  R. Cappato,et al.  Randomized comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest : the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH). , 2000, Circulation.

[20]  M Gent,et al.  Canadian implantable defibrillator study (CIDS) : a randomized trial of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator against amiodarone. , 2000, Circulation.