Zhang Lin, Narayanan Kumar, Chugh Harpriya, Shiota Takahiro, Zheng Zhi-Jie, Chugh Sumeet S
Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Public Health, Shanghai, China.
The Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 20;10(3):e0121515. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121515. eCollection 2015.
A growing literature suggests underutilization of the primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD); thus, factors influencing utilization need to be understood. We performed a comprehensive assessment of patient characteristics and health insurance status among subjects eligible for primary prevention ICD in a tertiary care center.
From among a group of patients who met criteria for primary prevention ICD based on left ventricular dysfunction (LVEF ≤ 35%), ICD recipients (n = 110) were compared to ICD non-recipients (n = 110) to identify determinants of ICD implantation. We evaluated demographics, clinical profile including Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI, categorized as low (≤3) or high (>3)] and health insurance status.
ICD recipients were younger (62.1±15.0 vs. 68.0±18.2; P = 0.01), with more males (80% vs. 65.5%; P = 0.01), higher NYHA class (II/III: 75.5% vs. 40.2%; P<0.001) and more likely to have supplemental private health insurance (61.8% vs. 46.4%; P = 0.02). CCI was not significantly different between the two groups (low CCI 61.8% vs. 62.7%; P = 0.89). In multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with ICD implantation were male sex (OR, 2.77, [1.31-5.85]; P = 0.01), age<75 (OR, 2.68, [1.30-5.50]; P = 0.01), private insurance (OR, 2.17, [1.08-4.36], P = 0.03) and NYHA Class II/III (OR, 5.91, [2.91-12.01]; P<0.001). Documentation of discussion about primary prevention ICD was absent in the majority (57.2%) of non-recipients.
In a contemporary urban tertiary care setting, age, sex and heart failure symptom class were associated with ICD utilization, with socioeconomic/insurance status also potentially playing a role. These findings have implications for optimizing appropriate utilization of the prophylactic ICD and warrant follow-up in larger, more diverse populations.
越来越多的文献表明,一级预防植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)的使用不足;因此,需要了解影响其使用的因素。我们在一家三级医疗中心对符合一级预防ICD标准的受试者的患者特征和健康保险状况进行了全面评估。
在一组基于左心室功能障碍(左心室射血分数≤35%)符合一级预防ICD标准的患者中,将ICD接受者(n = 110)与未接受ICD者(n = 110)进行比较,以确定ICD植入的决定因素。我们评估了人口统计学、临床特征(包括Charlson合并症指数[CCI,分为低(≤3)或高(>3)])和健康保险状况。
ICD接受者更年轻(62.1±15.0岁对68.0±18.2岁;P = 0.01),男性更多(80%对65.5%;P = 0.01),纽约心脏协会(NYHA)分级更高(II/III级:75.5%对40.2%;P<0.001),并且更有可能拥有补充性私人健康保险(61.8%对46.4%;P = 0.02)。两组之间的CCI无显著差异(低CCI:61.8%对62.7%;P = 0.89)。在多变量分析中,与ICD植入独立相关的因素为男性(比值比[OR],2.77,[1.31 - 5.85];P = 0.01)、年龄<75岁(OR,2.68,[1.30 - 5.50];P = 0.01)、私人保险(OR,2.17,[1.08 - 4.36],P = 0.03)和NYHA II/III级(OR,5.91,[2.91 - 12.01];P<0.001)。大多数(57.2%)未接受者没有关于一级预防ICD讨论的记录。
在当代城市三级医疗环境中,年龄、性别和心力衰竭症状分级与ICD的使用相关,社会经济/保险状况也可能发挥作用。这些发现对于优化预防性ICD的合理使用具有启示意义,并且需要在更大、更多样化的人群中进行随访。