Matlock Dan D, Peterson Pamela N, Heidenreich Paul A, Lucas F Lee, Malenka David J, Wang Yongfei, Curtis Jeptha P, Kutner Jean S, Fisher Elliott S, Masoudi Frederick A
University of Colorado-Denver, School of Medicine, 12631 E 17th Ave., Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011 Jan 1;4(1):114-21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.110.958264. Epub 2010 Dec 7.
Although the use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death varies by sex, race, and hospital, geographic variation in ICD use remains unexplored. Our objective was to quantify regional variations in the utilization of primary prevention ICDs in the United States, and to evaluate if an association exists between utilization and physician supply or the proportion of patients meeting the trial inclusion criteria.
This is a cross-sectional analysis among the Medicare, fee-for-service population from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Using hospital referral regions, we calculated the age-, sex-, and race-adjusted rates of ICD placement for each region and assessed the correlation between these rates and (1) physician supply and (2) the proportion of patients meeting trial inclusion criteria. Substantial variation was found across quintiles of rate ratios of ICD implantation, ranging from 0.39 to 1.77 (compared with a national mean rate of 1.0). This ratio was not correlated with the supply of cardiologists (R(2)=0.01), electrophysiologists (R(2)=0.01), or with the proportion of patients meeting trial inclusion criteria (R(2)<0.01). Over all, 13% of all patients receiving ICDs did not meet trial criteria.
Marked geographic variation in the use of primary prevention ICDs exists across the United States that is not correlated with physician supply. Although >1 in 10 patients received ICDs outside of trial criteria, this potential overuse did not explain the variation. Future studies should consider underuse or misuse of primary prevention ICDs as causes of geographic variation.
尽管植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)用于心脏性猝死一级预防的情况因性别、种族和医院而异,但ICD使用的地理差异仍未得到探索。我们的目标是量化美国一级预防ICD使用的区域差异,并评估使用情况与医生供应或符合试验纳入标准的患者比例之间是否存在关联。
这是一项针对国家心血管数据登记处医疗保险按服务收费人群的横断面分析。利用医院转诊区域,我们计算了每个区域经年龄、性别和种族调整的ICD植入率,并评估了这些率与(1)医生供应和(2)符合试验纳入标准的患者比例之间的相关性。在ICD植入率比的五分位数中发现了显著差异,范围从0.39到1.77(与全国平均率1.0相比)。该比率与心脏病专家的供应(R² = 0.01)、电生理学家的供应(R² = 0.01)或符合试验纳入标准的患者比例(R²<0.01)均无相关性。总体而言,所有接受ICD的患者中有13%不符合试验标准。
美国一级预防ICD的使用存在显著的地理差异,且与医生供应无关。尽管每10名患者中有超过1名在试验标准之外接受了ICD,但这种潜在的过度使用并不能解释这种差异。未来的研究应考虑将一级预防ICD的使用不足或误用作为地理差异的原因。