Important Parameters for Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Selection

Factors That Cause Concerns after Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to assess the factors that influence the occurrence of concerns and their intensification after the implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective and observational study including 158 patients. The study was conducted in two stages: stage I before implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation and stage II follow-up visit six months after ICD implantation. Standardized questionnaires were used in both stages.

RESULTS

Age and female gender were significantly correlated with the occurrence and intensity of concerns. Patients who had a device implanted for secondary prevention also experienced higher levels of concern. Additionally, a multiple regression model using the stepwise input method was performed. The model was statistically significant and explained 42% of the observed variance in the dependent variable (p = 0.0001, R² = 0.4215). The analysis showed that age (p = 0.0036), insomnia (p = 0.0276), anxiety (p = 0.0000) and negative emotions (p = 0.0374) were important predictors of the dependent variable and enabled higher levels of the number of concerns to be predicted.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a relationship between the severity of the concerns related to an implanted ICD and age, gender, anxiety, negative emotions and insomnia. Indications for ICD implantation may be associated with increased concerns about ICD.

Association Between Industry Payments to Physicians and Device Selection in ICD Implantation

IMPORTANCE

Little is known about the association between industry payments and medical device selection.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between payments from device manufacturers to physicians and device selection for patients undergoing first-time implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cross-sectional study, patients who received a first-time ICD or CRT-D device from any of the 4 major manufacturers (January 1, 2016-December 31, 2018) were identified. The data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry was linked with the Open Payments Program's payment data. Patients were categorized into 4 groups (A, B, C, and D) corresponding to the manufacturer from which the physician who performed the implantation received the largest payment. For each patient group, the proportion of patients who received a device from the manufacturer that provided the largest payment to the physician who performed implantation was determined. Within each group, the absolute difference in proportional use of devices between the manufacturer that made the highest payment and the proportion of devices from the same manufacturer in the entire study cohort (expected prevalence) was calculated.

EXPOSURES

Manufacturers' payments to physicians who performed an ICD or CRT-D implantation.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome of the study was the manufacturer of the device used for the implantation.

RESULTS

Over a 3-year period, 145 900 patients (median age, 65 years; 29.6% women) received ICD or CRT-D devices from the 4 manufacturers implanted by 4435 physicians at 1763 facilities. Among these physicians, 4152 (94%) received payments from device manufacturers ranging from $2 to $323 559 with a median payment of $1211 (interquartile range, $390-$3702). Between 38.5% and 54.7% of patients received devices from the manufacturers that had provided physicians with the largest payments. Patients were substantially more likely to receive devices made by the manufacturer that provided the largest payment to the physician who performed implantation than they were from each other individual manufacturer. The absolute differences in proportional use from the expected prevalence were 22.4% (95% CI, 21.9%-22.9%) for manufacturer A; 14.5% (95% CI, 14.0%-15.0%) for manufacturer B; 18.8% (95% CI, 18.2%-19.4%) for manufacturer C; and 30.6% (95% CI, 30.0%-31.2%) for manufacturer D.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, a large proportion of ICD or CRT-D implantations were performed by physicians who received payments from device manufacturers. Patients were more likely to receive ICD or CRT-D devices from the manufacturer that provided the highest total payment to the physician who performed an ICD or CRT-D implantation than each other manufacturer individually.