|
Contact: amurphy@acc.org;
800-253-4636; 301-581-3406
October 18, 2005
Practice
Makes Perfect When Implanting Cardioverter-Defibrillator Devices
Authors say patients and policies should favor high-volume practitioners
(BETHESDA, MD)As the implantation of cardioverter-defibrillator
devices to prevent sudden cardiac death becomes increasingly
popular, patients are likely to get the best results when they
are treated by physicians who perform the procedures frequently,
according to a new study in the Oct.
18, 2005, issue of the Journal of the American College of
Cardiology.
“Defibrillator
implantations performed by physicians with low volume are
more likely to have adverse outcomes, including infections
and mechanical complications. This suggests that defibrillator
implantations should be directed toward physicians with a
high volume of defibrillator implantations,” said Sana
M. Al-Khatib, M.D., M.H.S., F.A.C.C. from the Duke Clinical
Research Institute in Durham, North Carolina.
This is the largest study of the relationship
between the volume of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
(ICD) procedures done by physicians and the outcomes for their
patients. The small devices are placed under the skin, with
electrodes leading to the patient’s heart. If the device
detects a potentially life-threatening heart arrhythmia, it
can automatically deliver a shock to jolt the heart back into
a normal rhythm.
The researchers analyzed Medicare records for
1999 through 2001 to identify patients who received cardioverter-defibrillators
and also how many of those patients received hospital treatment
for complications within 90 days of the implant procedure.
There was no significant difference in death rates between
high-volume and low-volume physicians; but mechanical complications
were more common among patients of the lowest-volume physicians.
Among higher-volume physicians, those who implanted at least
11 devices per year into Medicare patients had similar rates
of mechanical complications. Patients of the lowest-volume
physicians also suffered significantly more infections around
the site of their implants. Because this analysis included
only procedures paid for by Medicare, the actual total volume
of procedures done by the physicians may have been higher
than the figures reported in the study.
Dr. Al-Khatib noted that although they looked
at only Medicare patients, she didn’t see any reason
to believe the relationship between physician volume and outcomes
would be different among patients who are not enrolled in
Medicare. She also said that since they analyzed administrative
data from Medicare, rather than looking directly at medical
records, they did not have data on how sick the patients were;
so it could be that the patients who had complications were
sicker.
Nevertheless, the authors say the results point
to physician volume as an important indicator of patient complication
rates.
“Our findings suggest that ICD implantation
should be directed toward high-volume physicians,” the
authors wrote.
Anne B. Curtis, M.D., F.A.C.C., from the University
of South Florida and the President of the Heart Rhythm Society
wrote in an editorial in the journal that, “Whatever
the physician’s background in this area, it is clear
that experience counts, and it counts for a lot.”
“Previous studies and the Al-Khatib article
suggest that, in order to do the procedure safely and have
good patient outcomes, an M.D. has to have a sufficiently
high volume practice. That fact was key in the Heart Rhythm
Society’s alternative training pathway guidelines for
implantation of cardioverter defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization
devices, as referenced in the article,” Dr. Curtis said.
“Cardiologists need to be adequately trained to start
doing procedures for which they did not train in fellowship.
Some cardiologists in practice may not be happy with these
conclusions, but the Heart Rhythm Society and I believe that
patient outcome is the key determinant as to how we should
handle this issue, and the Al-Khatib manuscript supports our
guidelines.”
In her editorial, Dr. Curtis wrote that Medicare
enrollees often account for around half of a cardiologist’s
practice, so the total volume of implantations, including
both Medicare and non-Medicare patients, by the physicians
included in this study may be approximately double the levels
reported.
“If so, then implanting fewer than two
ICDs per month would be associated with a higher complication
rate,” Dr. Curtis wrote.
Stephen C. Hammill, M.D., F.A.C.C. from the
Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not connected
with this study said the results highlight the importance
of efforts to train and credential physicians implanting these
devices and then to track the outcomes of their patients.
“There is great concern in the medical
and payer community that ICDs will be implanted by inexperienced
physicians resulting in increased patient risk as supported
by the Al-Khatib paper. Several things have happened to allow
less experienced MDs to implant ICDs, including expanded coverage
by Medicare, which greatly enlarges the number of patients
who are candidates for the ICD, smaller and easier devices
to implant, and reduced cost of the devices to hospitals,”
Dr. Hammill said.
The American College of
Cardiology, a 33,000-member nonprofit professional medical
society and teaching institution, is dedicated to fostering
optimal cardiovascular care and disease prevention through
professional education, promotion of research, leadership
in the development of standards and guidelines, and the formulation
of health care policy.
The American
College of Cardiology (ACC) provides these new reports of
clinical studies published in the Journal of the American
College of Cardiology as a service to physicians, the media,
the public, and other interested parties. However, statements
or opinions expressed in these reports reflect the view of
the author(s) and do not represent official policy of the
ACC unless stated so. |