Author + information
- Received September 4, 2010
- Revision received March 23, 2011
- Accepted April 27, 2011
- Published online August 30, 2011.
- Thomas A. Dewland, MD⁎,
- Cara N. Pellegrini, MD†,§,
- Yongfei Wang, MS‡,
- Gregory M. Marcus, MD, MAS†,
- Edmund Keung, MD†,§ and
- Paul D. Varosy, MD∥,¶,⁎ ()
- ↵⁎Reprint requests and correspondence:
Dr. Paul D. Varosy, Denver Veterans Affairs Medical Center, University of Colorado, Denver, 1055 Clermont Street (Cardiology 111B), Denver, Colorado 80220
Objectives The aim of this study was to compare single- versus dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation and complication rates in a large, real-world population.
Background The majority of patients enrolled in ICD efficacy trials received single-chamber devices. Although dual-chamber ICDs offer theoretical advantages over single-chamber defibrillators, the clinical superiority of dual-chamber models has not been conclusively proven, and they may increase complications.
Methods The National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry was used to examine the association between baseline characteristics and device selection in 104,049 patients receiving single- and dual-chamber ICDs between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007. A longitudinal cohort design was then used to determine in-hospital complication rates.
Results Dual-chamber devices were implanted in 64,489 patients (62%). Adverse events were more frequent with dual-chamber than with single-chamber device implantation (3.17% vs. 2.11%, p < 0.001), as was the rate of in-hospital mortality (0.40% vs. 0.23%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for demographics, medical comorbidities, diagnostic test data, and ICD indication, the odds of any complication (odds ratio: 1.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.28 to 1.52; p < 0.001) and in-hospital mortality (odds ratio: 1.45; 95% confidence interval: 1.20 to 1.74; p < 0.001) were increased with dual-chamber versus single-chamber ICD implantation.
Conclusions In this large, multicenter cohort of patients, dual-chamber ICD use was common. Dual-chamber device implantation was associated with increases in periprocedural complications and in-hospital mortality compared with single-chamber defibrillator selection.
Funding for this study was provided in part by a Research Career Development Award (RCD 04-115-2 to Dr. Varosy) from the Veterans Administration Office of Health Services Research and Development. Dr. Marcus has received research funding from St. Jude Medical and speaker's fees from Biotronik and St. Jude Medical. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.
- Received September 4, 2010.
- Revision received March 23, 2011.
- Accepted April 27, 2011.
- American College of Cardiology Foundation