Estimates of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Complications
2009; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 119; Issue: 8 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1161/circulationaha.108.841452
ISSN1524-4539
Autores Tópico(s)Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
ResumoHomeCirculationVol. 119, No. 8Estimates of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Complications Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBEstimates of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator ComplicationsCaveat Emptor Kelley P. Anderson Kelley P. AndersonKelley P. Anderson From Marshfield Clinic, Marshfield, Wis. Originally published3 Mar 2009https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.841452Circulation. 2009;119:1069–1071Appropriate selection of patients for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy requires knowledge of the beneficial effects and adverse consequences of such therapy. Although the randomized clinical trial is the sine qua non for establishing the benefits and exposing the adverse effects of interventions, subjects recruited for ICD trials may not represent the eligible population.1 Moreover, improved treatments of the underlying disorders and comorbid conditions and advances in equipment and implantation techniques could alter the balance of benefits and risks so that information from older clinical trials cannot be assumed to reflect current practice. In this issue of Circulation, Peterson and colleagues provide one of the first peer-reviewed studies using the National ICD Registry (NICDR) to examine gender-related differences in ICD implantation complication rates.2 Two preliminary reports have shown that patients in the NICDR differ significantly from those recruited into 2 of the primary prevention ICD trials that provided the evidence base for current practice guidelines and reimbursement policies of the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services.3,4Article p 1078Participation is voluntary for most registries. Registries that include hospitals that agree to time- and labor-intensive data recording requirements and external scrutiny cannot be expected to represent hospitals that do not. The NICDR is part compulsory and part voluntary. Participation in the NICDR is required to receive reimbursement for primary prevention ICDs in Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services beneficiaries; however, about 75% of hospitals have elected to enroll all ICD patients in the NICDR.5 As of June 2008, data from 1448 hospitals totaling >270 373 implants had been entered in the NICDR. The report by Peterson et al2 is based on 204 700 unique patients accrued between January 2006 and December 2007 from 1224 hospitals. After exclusion of patients with a previous ICD implantation, the report by Peterson et al is based on 161 470 patients, which is nearly 50 times larger than the 3367 patients enrolled in the ICD arms of 9 primary prevention trials.2,6Peterson et al2 report that among the NICDR patients they analyzed, 3.55% experienced an adverse event, 1.35% had a major event, and 0.42% died. In contrast, a peri-implantation mechanical complication rate of 5.3% of 3299 ICD recipients and a mortality rate of 1.3% of 39 858 ICD recipients were estimated from a systematic review of randomized clinical trials and observational studies.6 In a relatively contemporary (2003) population of 30 984 Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services beneficiaries, administrative data were used to estimate a complication rate of 10.8% and a mortality rate of 0.9% for ICD implantation.7 These variant estimates of implantation-related complications and deaths underscore the need for clarity with regard to event definitions, timing of events, data sources, characterization of the population sample, and accuracy of recorded events.All data are subject to errors, but systematic errors could skew estimates of complications in ways that are difficult to detect. Schemes that codify adverse effects can promote errors by neglecting key complications or by using ambiguous definitions. In particular, reports based on International Classification of Diseases–Clinical Modification codes require subjective decisions in the interpretation of codes created by committees and applied by coders with limited knowledge of ICD complications.7,8 Some complications could be systematically underreported owing to perceived threats to personal or institutional reputation, because of financial or legal ramifications, or because they are difficult to identify or characterize. Reporting of particular complications also could be enhanced by reimbursement policies or because they are more easily detected. Recently, investigators examined data from the registry established by the British Cardiac Society, the Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons, and the British Pediatric Cardiac Association.9 Survival data after treatment for congenital heart disease submitted by participating hospitals on a voluntary basis were compared with independently validated life status. The investigators found that 7 of 11 centers underreported death within 30 days. Volunteered data underestimated 30-day mortality by 22%. Hospital statistics underreported the total number of procedures by 10%, underreported death within 30 days by 9%, and misclassified 1% of surviving patients as deceased.9 If ascertainment of a discrete event such as mortality is imperfect, determination of more subtle and subjective adverse events is likely to be more prone to errors. This concern is highlighted by a study that showed significant differences in comorbid conditions recorded in an administrative database compared with individual chart review.8 The prevalence of comorbid conditions such as congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, and renal disease was underreported by 12%, 49%, and 33%, respectively. In addition, risk-adjustment methods based on comorbid conditions may also be distorted.8 These studies demonstrate that the accuracy of registry and administrative data cannot be assumed.Peterson et al2 clearly show that women have higher rates of certain types of complications, and they propose plausible hypotheses for their observations. If it is true, for instance, that smaller body size is responsible for increased risk, and if changes in equipment design or techniques lower this risk, complications might be reduced for many men and children, as well as for some women. Clinicians will be tantalized by the listed rates of 20 complications, prospectively defined by ICD experts and stratified by sex. Because of the size and representation of the database, these data should have a precision and relevance to current practice that surpass previous sources. In addition, the clinical context is framed by detailed patient and hospital demographics and clinical characteristics.2 However, a number of questions remain to be addressed: Did complications occur that were not listed in the NICDR data forms, such as refractory ventricular fibrillation requiring multiple shocks, prolonged hypotension, or heart failure exacerbation? Was there evidence of underreporting, eg, hospitals with very low complication rates? Were complication rates different from the 25% of hospitals that did not elect to enroll all ICD recipients? What was the temporal distribution of complications? It is expected that complications that occur during the implantation procedure are reliably reported, but complications that occur later during the hospital stay require additional effort to track down, and events that occur after discharge, including death, are not recorded. Therefore, it is important to determine whether there is evidence of underreporting based on when the complication occurred, whether complication rates are affected by duration of hospitalization, and whether complications are being missed for outpatient procedures. Peterson et al2 showed that length of stay was prolonged in patients with complications, but it is not clear whether this was due to a longer hospitalization before implantation (ie, related to preexisting risk) or to prolonged length of stay after implantation.Accurate estimation of adverse effects is a major challenge. The complications included in the current version of the NICDR are just the tip of the iceberg of the wide variety of adverse effects that occur over the ICD recipient's lifetime. From a systematic review of clinical trials and observational studies, the estimated frequencies (per 100 patient-years) of postimplantation complications (as distinguished from the 5.3% rate of peri-implantation complications cited earlier) were 1.4 for device malfunctions, 1.5 for lead problems, and 0.6 for implant-site infection.6 Whether or not they prolong life, most ICD shocks are unpleasant and may contribute to a variety of mild to severe psychological reactions, and in some trials, they have been associated with increased mortality.6,10 In an analysis of clinical trials, inappropriate shocks were very frequent (19.1 per 100 patient-years), and therapeutic shocks occurred in 5% to 12% of patients per year.6 Other adverse effects of ICD therapy are more difficult to quantify. For instance, exclusion from magnetic resonance imaging, which applies to many current ICDs, may result in a more painful or harmful diagnostic procedure or failure to diagnose an important disorder. In some cases, patients are excluded from a preferred occupation or recreational activity, such as arc welding. ICD generator or lead recalls or safety alerts often provoke anxiety, and if explantation is necessary, there is a risk of procedural complications, including death. Psychological reactions are very common in patients with ICDs, but their existence may not be evident to the clinician or even to the patient unless specifically sought. Finally, there is a category of ICD complications that are believed to exist but are difficult to prove in individuals. For instance, clinical trials demonstrate that ICD therapy reduces the risk of sudden cardiac death by only 54%. In most cases, the mechanism of sudden cardiac death in patients with an ICD is not known. It is postulated that some of these deaths are due to device-related complications such as proarrhythmia, failure to detect or to terminate ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, pacing-resistant asystole, or other forms of pulseless electrical activity after shock.6,11,12Several features of the NICDR contract, as well as measures taken by the staff of the American College of Cardiology Foundation, promote the quality of the data, and when the results of audits become available, a quantitative assessment should be possible. A new version of the NICDR database will improve adverse event detection by including follow-up data on leads.5 It will also be configured to enroll pediatric ICD recipients, who have a different distribution of complications from adults. Another project, the Longitudinal ICD Registry study, will follow up a cohort of 3500 Medicare beneficiaries receiving a primary prevention ICD.5 The purpose of the study is to analyze ICD therapies during 3 years of follow-up and mortality for up to 5 years. This will be combined with data from the NICDR, the National Death Index, and Medicare claims. Although it is not its primary objective, the Longitudinal ICD Registry will have the capacity to provide details about many adverse events in an important subset of the NICDR.In summary, ICD therapy is associated with a large variety of adverse effects, some of which are experienced by all recipients with variable severity, some of which are very difficult to detect, and some of which are postulated but unproved. Although no single data source is likely to provide a comprehensive perspective of adverse events, the NICDR is uniquely capable of accomplishing this objective with unsurpassed power and detail. To fulfill the promise of providing reliable information for clinicians, patients, and the public, the NICDR must establish a framework for continuous monitoring of the database and public disclosure. This includes oversight of data acquisition, auditing of data, reporting of data accuracy, alerts when safety thresholds are exceeded, and appropriate risk adjustment before public reporting. This might be best accomplished by a named independent data and safety monitoring board that would be held accountable for these responsibilities.The NICDR is a milestone in the history of ICD therapy that should improve the care of ICD patients on many levels. It is also likely to be the focal point of scrutiny of ICD outcomes, as well as physician performance and reimbursement. The many parties that contributed to the development of the NICDR should be recognized, in particular, the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services for creating the mandate, the NICDR Working Group for creating the registry, the American College of Cardiology Foundation for implementing the registry, and the participating hospitals for the time, effort, and considerable expense involved in collecting the data. The medical community should now address the complex and controversial issue of how the NICDR should be funded in view of the likelihood that information from the NICDR will improve selection of ICD candidates, reduce complications, and save millions of dollars.The opinions expressed in this editorial are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.DisclosuresNone.FootnotesCorrespondence to Kelley P. Anderson, MD, Department of Cardiology 2D2, Marshfield Clinic, 1000 N Oak Ave, Marshfield, WI 54449. E-mail [email protected] References 1 Sharma PP, Greenlee RT, Anderson KP, Chyou PH, Osorio HJ, Smith PN, Hayes JH, Vidaillet H. Prevalence and mortality of patients with myocardial infarction and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in a defined community: relation to the second Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2007; 19: 157–164.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Peterson PN, Daugherty SL, Wang Y, Vidaillet HJ, Heidenreich PA, Curtis JP, Masoudi FA; the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Gender differences in procedure-related adverse events in patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy. Circulation. 2009; 119: 1078–1084.LinkGoogle Scholar3 Al-Khatib SM, Wang Y, Zareba W, Peterson E, Sanders GD, Krumholz H, Lee KL, Mark DB, Moss AJ. Patients who receive an implantable cardioverter defibrillator for MADIT-II criteria in clinical practice are different from patients enrolled in MADIT-II. Circulation. 2007; 116 (suppl II): II-533. Abstract.Google Scholar4 Al-Khatib SM, Wang Y, Lee KL, Mark DB, Poole JE, Sanders GD, Peterson E, Curtis J, Bardy GH. Do patients who meet SCD-HeFT criteria in clinical practice differ from patients enrolled in SCD-HeFT? Circulation. 2007; 116 (suppl II): II-822. Abstract.Google Scholar5 Hammill SC, Kremers MS, Stevenson LW, Kadish AH, Heidenreich PA, Lindsay BD, Mirro MJ, Radford MJ, Wang Y, Curtis JP, Lang CM, Harder JC, Brindis RG. Review of the Registry's second year, data collected, and plans to add lead and pediatric ICD procedures. Heart Rhythm. 2008; 5: 1359–1363.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 Ezekowitz JA, Rowe BH, Dryden DM, Hooton N, Vandermeer B, Spooner C, McAlister FA. Systematic review: implantable cardioverter defibrillators for adults with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147: 251–262.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 Reynolds MR, Cohen DJ, Kugelmass AD, Brown PP, Becker ER, Culler SD, Simon AW. The frequency and incremental cost of major complications among Medicare beneficiaries receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 47: 2493–2497.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 Quan H, Parsons GA, Ghali WA. Validity of information on comorbidity derived from ICD-9-CCM administrative data. Med Care. 2002; 40: 675–685.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Gibbs JL, Monro JL, Cunningham D, Rickards A; Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; Paediatric Cardiac Association; Alder Hey Hospital. Survival after surgery or therapeutic catheterisation for congenital heart disease in children in the United Kingdom: analysis of the central cardiac audit database for 2000–1. BMJ. 2004; 328: 611.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10 Kuhl EA, Dixit NK, Walker RL, Conti JB, Sears SF. Measurement of patient fears about implantable cardioverter defibrillator shock: an initial evaluation of the Florida Shock Anxiety Scale. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2006; 29: 614–618.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11 Anderson KP. Sudden cardiac death unresponsive to implantable defibrillator therapy: an urgent target for clinicians, industry and government. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2005; 14: 71–78.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12 Germano JJ, Reynolds M, Essebag V, Josephson ME. Frequency and causes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapies: is device therapy proarrhythmic? Am J Cardiol. 2006; 97: 1255–1261.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar eLetters(0)eLetters should relate to an article recently published in the journal and are not a forum for providing unpublished data. Comments are reviewed for appropriate use of tone and language. Comments are not peer-reviewed. Acceptable comments are posted to the journal website only. Comments are not published in an issue and are not indexed in PubMed. Comments should be no longer than 500 words and will only be posted online. References are limited to 10. Authors of the article cited in the comment will be invited to reply, as appropriate.Comments and feedback on AHA/ASA Scientific Statements and Guidelines should be directed to the AHA/ASA Manuscript Oversight Committee via its Correspondence page.Sign In to Submit a Response to This Article Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Proietti R, Joza J and Essebag V (2016) Therapy for ventricular arrhythmias in structural heart disease: a multifaceted challenge, The Journal of Physiology, 10.1113/JP270534, 594:9, (2431-2443), Online publication date: 1-May-2016. Ezzat V, Lee V, Ahsan S, Chow A, Segal O, Rowland E, Lowe M and Lambiase P (2015) A systematic review of ICD complications in randomised controlled trials versus registries: is our 'real-world' data an underestimation?, Open Heart, 10.1136/openhrt-2014-000198, 2:1, (e000198), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2015. Lambiase P, Barr C, Theuns D, Knops R, Neuzil P, Johansen J, Hood M, Pedersen S, Kääb S, Murgatroyd F, Reeve H, Carter N, Boersma L, Adragão P, Agarwal S, Barr C, Boersma L, Brock-Johanssen J, Butter C, Calò L, Eckhardt L, Gulizia M, Scholten M, Dekker L, Khiani R, Hjortshot S, Høgh Petersen H, Hood M, Kääb S, Knops R, Kuschyk J, Lambiase P, Maass K, McLeod K, Molon G, Morgan J, Mortensen P, Murgatroyd F, Neuzil P, Pepper C, Sheridan P, Stellbrink C, Stuart G, Theuns D, Vernooy K, Veltmann C and Wende C (2014) Worldwide experience with a totally subcutaneous implantable defibrillator: early results from the EFFORTLESS S-ICD Registry, European Heart Journal, 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu112, 35:25, (1657-1665), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2014. Travin M (2012) Cardiac autonomic imaging with SPECT tracers, Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 10.1007/s12350-012-9655-1, 20:1, (128-143), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2013. Travin M and Kamalakkannan G (2012) A key role for nuclear cardiac imaging in evaluating and managing patients with heart failure, Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 10.1007/s12350-012-9615-9, 19:5, (879-882), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2012. Anderson K (2012) Ablation for atrial fibrillation: what are acceptable levels of experience, efficacy, and complications?, Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, 10.1007/s10840-012-9673-6, 34:2, (125-128), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2012. Kelesidis I and Travin M (2011) Use of cardiac radionuclide imaging to identify patients at risk for arrhythmic sudden cardiac death, Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 10.1007/s12350-011-9482-9, 19:1, (142-152), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2012. Hammill S, Kremers M and Al-Khatib S (2011) Implantable Cardioverter–Defibrillator Registries—What Have We Learned?, Cardiac Electrophysiology Clinics, 10.1016/j.ccep.2011.08.008, 3:4, (521-527), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2011. Arias M, Domínguez-Pérez L, Toquero J, Jiménez-Candil J, Olagüe J, Díaz-Infante E, Tercedor L, Valverde I, Castro J, García-Fernández F and Rodríguez-Padial L (2011) Electrodo de desfibrilación Sprint Fidelis: experiencia de nueve centros en España, Revista Española de Cardiología, 10.1016/j.recesp.2010.11.008, 64:4, (312-318), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2011. Arias M, Domínguez-Pérez L, Toquero J, Jiménez-Candil J, Olagüe J, Díaz-Infante E, Tercedor L, Valverde I, Castro J, García-Fernández F and Rodríguez-Padial L (2011) Sprint Fidelis Defibrillation Lead: a Nine-Center Experience in Spain, Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition), 10.1016/j.rec.2010.10.033, 64:4, (312-318), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2011. Kramer D and Maisel W (2011) Guidelines for Managing Pacemaker and Implantable Defibrillator Advisories Clinical Cardiac Pacing, Defibrillation and Resynchronization Therapy, 10.1016/B978-1-4377-1616-0.00034-5, (1028-1039), . Lee D, Krahn A, Healey J, Birnie D, Crystal E, Dorian P, Simpson C, Khaykin Y, Cameron D, Janmohamed A, Yee R, Austin P, Chen Z, Hardy J and Tu J (2010) Evaluation of Early Complications Related to De Novo Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.11.029, 55:8, (774-782), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2010. Hammill S, Kremers M, Kadish A, Stevenson L, Heidenreich P, Lindsay B, Mirro M, Radford M, McKay C, Wang Y, Lang C, Pontzer K, Rumsfeld J, Phurrough S, Curtis J and Brindis R (2009) Review of the ICD Registry's Third Year, Expansion to include Lead Data and Pediatric ICD Procedures, and Role for Measuring Performance, Heart Rhythm, 10.1016/j.hrthm.2009.07.015, 6:9, (1397-1401), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2009. Krum H and Sanders P (2009) Expanding indications for pacing in chronic heart failure, Medical Journal of Australia, 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02520.x, 190:9, (470-471), Online publication date: 1-May-2009. March 3, 2009Vol 119, Issue 8 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.841452PMID: 19255352 Originally publishedMarch 3, 2009 KeywordsarrhythmiadefibrillationfibrillationEditorialsPDF download Advertisement SubjectsArrhythmiasCatheter Ablation and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator
Referência(s)