Number Of Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Implantations Research Articles

Spanish implantable cardioverter-defibrillator registry. 18th official report of the Heart Rhythm Association of the Spanish Society of Cardiology (2021)

Introduction and objectivesThis article presents the data corresponding to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations in Spain in 2021. MethodsThe data were drawn from implanting centers, which voluntarily completed a data collection sheet during the procedure. ResultsIn 2021, 7496 implant data sheets were received, compared with 7743 reported by Eucomed (European Confederation of Medical Suppliers Associations), indicating that data were collected from 96.8% of the devices implanted in Spain. Data completion ranged from 99.9% for “name of implanting hospital” to 8.9% for “implanting hospital”. In 2021, 199 hospitals participated in the registry, exceeding the figures of previous years, with around 170 participating hospitals. The total rate of registered implants was 158/million inhabitants (163 according to Eucomed), making 2021 the year with the highest activity. However, the registry continues to show significant differences among the various autonomous communities and the lowest implantation rate of all the European countries participating in Eucomed. ConclusionsThe Spanish implantable cardioverter-defibrillator registry for 2021 recorded an increase in the number of ICD implantations, reflecting the recovery of hospital activity after the initial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Although the total number of implants has increased in Spain, figures are still much lower than the European Union average, with differences persisting among Spanish autonomous communities.

Registro español de desfibrilador automático implantable. XVIII informe oficial de la Asociación del Ritmo Cardiaco de la Sociedad Española de Cardiología (2021)

Introduction and objectivesThis article presents the data corresponding to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations in Spain in 2021. MethodsThe data were drawn from implanting centers, which voluntarily completed a data collection sheet during the procedure. ResultsIn 2021, 7496 implant data sheets were received, compared with 7743 reported by Eucomed (European Confederation of Medical Suppliers Associations), indicating that data were collected from 96.8% of the devices implanted in Spain. Data completion ranged from 99.9% for “name of implanting hospital” to 8.9% for “implanting hospital”. In 2021, 199 hospitals participated in the registry, exceeding the figures of previous years, with around 170 participating hospitals. The total rate of registered implants was 158/million inhabitants (163 according to Eucomed), making 2021 the year with the highest activity. However, the registry continues to show significant differences among the various autonomous communities and the lowest implantation rate of all the European countries participating in Eucomed. ConclusionsThe Spanish implantable cardioverter-defibrillator registry for 2021 recorded an increase in the number of ICD implantations, reflecting the recovery of hospital activity after the initial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Although the total number of implants has increased in Spain, figures are still much lower than the European Union average, with differences persisting among Spanish autonomous communities.

Spanish Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Registry. 17th Official Report of the Heart Rhythm Association of the Spanish Society of Cardiology (2020)

Introduction and objectivesWe present the data corresponding to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implants in Spain in 2020. MethodsThe data in this registry were drawn from implantation centers, which voluntarily completed a data collection sheet. ResultsIn 2020, 7056 implant sheets were received compared with 7106 reported by Eucomed (European Confederation of Medical Suppliers Associations), indicating that data were collected from 99% of the devices implanted in Spain. Completion of the implant sheet ranged from 99.8% for the field “name of the implanting hospital” to 2.6% for the variable “referral hospital”. A total of 173 hospitals performed ICD implants and participated in the registry, which is a similar figure to that in 2019 (n=172). The total rate of registered implants was 149/million inhabitants (150 according to Eucomed), revealing a slight reduction in implants in Spain in 2020 as a result of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This reduction was uneven among the autonomous communities. ConclusionsThe Spanish Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Registry for 2020 shows an improvement in the rate of implants reported and a reduction in the number of ICD implants, which likely reflects the decrease in hospital activity not related to the treatment of COVID-19 infection. Similar to previous years, the total number of implants in Spain is still much lower than the average for the European Union, with an increase in the differences between Spanish autonomous communities.

Registro Español de Desfibrilador Automático Implantable. XVII Informe Oficial de la Asociación del Ritmo Cardiaco de la Sociedad Española de Cardiología (2020)

Introduction and objectivesWe present the data corresponding to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implants in Spain in 2020. MethodsThe data in this registry were drawn from implantation centers, which voluntarily completed a data collection sheet. ResultsIn 2020, 7056 implant sheets were received compared with 7106 reported by Eucomed (European Confederation of Medical Suppliers Associations), indicating that data were collected from 99% of the devices implanted in Spain. Completion of the implant sheet ranged from 99.8% for the field “name of the implanting hospital” to 2.6% for the variable “referral hospital”. A total of 173 hospitals performed ICD implants and participated in the registry, which is a similar figure to that in 2019 (n=172). The total rate of registered implants was 149/million inhabitants (150 according to Eucomed), revealing a slight reduction in implants in Spain in 2020 as a result of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This reduction was uneven among the autonomous communities. ConclusionsThe Spanish Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Registry for 2020 shows an improvement in the rate of implants reported and a reduction in the number of ICD implants, which likely reflects the decrease in hospital activity not related to the treatment of COVID-19 infection. Similar to previous years, the total number of implants in Spain is still much lower than the average for the European Union, with an increase in the differences between Spanish autonomous communities.Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en

Gender Disparities in Quality of Life and Psychological Disturbance in Patients With Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has improved prognosis in fatal arrhythmia and the number of ICD implantations has increased. ICD-related psychological problems and impaired quality of life (QOL), however, have been observed. This study examined whether gender differences exist in QOL and psychological disturbances in ICD patients. Consecutive outpatients (n=179; mean age, 60.5±15.9 years; 81% male) with ICD implantations completed questionnaires consisting of the Short Form-8 (SF-8), Beck Depression Inventory, Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and Worries about ICD. One-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) showed women to have impaired QOL on the role physical functioning (F15,157=4.57, P<0.05) and bodily pain (F15,157=5.26, P<0.05) subscales of the SF-8. More women reported depression (F15,157=5.37, P<0.05) and worry about ICD than men (F15,157=6.62, P<0.05). Moreover, women also had higher IES-R scores indicating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than men (F15,157=5.87, P<0.05). Women reported poorer QOL on 2 subscales: role physical functioning and bodily pain. There was a significant relationship between gender and depression, worry about ICD, and PTSD, but not for anxiety. Female patients need more psychological interventions following ICD implantation.

Should Catheter Ablation be the Preferred Therapy for Reducing ICD Shocks?

In 1980, Mirowski et al1 implanted the first implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in a young female with recurrent ventricular fibrillation and provided an innovative approach to aborted sudden cardiac death (SCD). Although the ICD was considered a treatment of last resort during that incipient stage, subsequent years have witnessed prolific expansion of indications for ICD implantation.2 Several large-scale clinical trials have demonstrated its efficacy for both primary and secondary prevention of SCD in patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy.3,4 ICD therapy in such high-risk patients has been shown to improve survival compared with conventional antiarrhythmic drug therapy alone.3,4 The number of ICD implantations has increased significantly in the last decade, with a concurrent decrease in the use of stand-alone antiarrhythmic drugs for ventricular indications.5–7 Current ICDs have sophisticated programming capabilities, atrial and bipolar leads, and are able to deliver antitachycardia pacing algorithms (ATP) in addition to defibrillating shocks. Response by Kuck on p 705 Typically, patients who receive ICDs are at high risk for recurrent arrhythmia; hence, most patients receive 1 or more ICD therapies for spontaneous arrhythmias after implantation.3 Despite the technological evolution of ICD systems, more than 20% of shocks are due to supraventricular arrhythmia and hence are inappropriate.8–10 The ICD uses ATP or defibrillating shocks to terminate episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). Although the ICD aborts VT/VF, many patients continue to have symptoms such as dizziness, palpitations, nervousness, flushing, or syncope before receiving an ICD shock.11 When the shock is finally delivered, it is physically and emotionally painful and so noxious that 23% of patients dread shocks and 5% of patients prefer to do without an ICD and “take their chances.”12 A significant prevalence of sadness, depression, and even anxiety disorders have been reported after …

Patient and Implanting Physician Factors Associated With Mortality and Complications After Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation, 2002–2005

Little is known about factors that influence survival and complications after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation in routine clinical practice. We examined patient and implanting physician factors associated with outcomes of ICD therapy in Medicare beneficiaries from 2002 through 2005. We limited this analysis to patients aged >or=65 with Medicare fee-for-service coverage who received an ICD between January 2002 and September 2005. The main outcome measures are time to postprocedural complications within 90 days and 1-year mortality. During the study period, 8581 patients had an ICD implanted by 1959 physicians. The number of procedures increased from 1644 in 2002 to 2374 in the first 3 quarters of 2005. The overall complication rate declined from 18.8% in 2002 to 14.2% in 2005 (P<0.001). Factors independently associated with an increased hazard of complications include chronic lung disease, dementia, renal disease, implantation by a thoracic surgeon, and implantation with removal/replacement. History of congestive heart failure, outpatient implantation, and more recent years of ICD implantation were associated with a lower risk of complications (P<0.05 for all factors). From 2002 to 2005, we observed a decline in 1-year mortality (P<0.001). We observed an appreciable increase in the number of ICD implants, which was associated with a significant decrease in the rate of complications and 1-year mortality. We identified factors associated with an increased risk of mortality and postprocedural complications that may support more nuanced treatment decisions than are currently possible.

Lessons From the Failure and Recall of an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator

Multiple clinical trials have shown that a properly functioning implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is capable of interrupting sudden death caused by ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Unfortunately, ICDs are complex medical devices, and they do not always perform as expected. For example, only 5% of ICD batteries last >7 years, and most dual-chamber ICD models must be replaced for battery depletion every 3 to 5 years.1 Normal battery depletion, however, is reliably predicted by routine follow-up methods before an ICD fails. In contrast, electronic malfunctions are unpredictable and may not be detected by standard follow-up techniques before an ICD is unable to deliver effective therapy. Thus, sudden cardiac arrest or death may be the first and only sign that an ICD has failed.2 Recently, we reported the death of a 21-year-old patient who received a Prizm 2 DR model 1861 ICD pulse generator (Guidant, Inc) in 2001 to prevent sudden cardiac death resulting from hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.3 In March 2005, this young man experienced a witnessed arrest and could not be resuscitated. His ICD was returned to Guidant, which found that the device had failed during the delivery of a shock. The cause of failure was massive electronic damage caused by electrical overstress that occurred when a short circuit developed between a high-voltage wire and a tube used to test the housing during manufacturing (see the Figure). At the time of our patient’s death, Guidant had knowledge of 25 similar Prizm 2 DR model 1861 failures in patients, 3 of whom had required rescue defibrillation. Indeed, Guidant had first observed this mode of failure 3 years earlier, in February 2002, when 2 returned Prizm 2 DR pulse generators exhibited the same short circuiting that caused our patient’s device to fail. Guidant was sufficiently concerned about these failures that manufacturing changes were made …