Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22306794›Full record

ArticleHeart rhythm2012

Referring physicians' discordance with the primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator guidelines: a national survey.

Jorge M Castellanos, Lisa M Smith, Paul D Varosy, Christine Dehlendorf, Gregory M Marcus

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Heart rhythm, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Stable but Progressive Nature of Heart Failure: Considerations for Primary Care Physicians.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2018
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The pathway to physician reimbursement for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs): a history and brief synopsis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2013
    Review
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jorge M CastellanosDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-1354, USA.
Lisa M Smith
Paul D Varosy
Christine Dehlendorf
Gregory M Marcus
Electrophysiology Research Foundation · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

CTSA: K12 COMPONENTKL2RR024130 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI JOHNSTON, S. CLAIBORNE · 2006 to 2011
$19.3M
NCRR NIH HHS KL2 RR024130NHLBI NIH HHS L30 HL078035
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society guidelines provide patient selection criteria for primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). For unknown reasons, guideline-discordant practice is common.

objectiveTo determine referring physicians' concordance with the primary prevention ICD guidelines.

methodsWe mailed a survey regarding ICD guidelines and individual practice characteristics to a random national sample of 3000 physicians selected from the American Medical Association Masterfile-one-third each specializing in family medicine, internal medicine, and general cardiology.

resultsSixty-four percent with correct contact information responded. Three hundred ninety-five (28%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 25%-30%) respondents never refer patients with the intent of consideration for a primary prevention ICD, including 7% (95% CI 5%-10%) of cardiologists. Two hundred twelve (15%; 95% CI 13%-17%) believe ventricular arrhythmias are required before a primary prevention ICD is indicated; 525 (36%; 95% CI 34%-39%) believe that an ejection fraction of >40% warrants a primary prevention ICD; and 361 (25%; 95% CI 23%-27%) would refer a patient for a primary prevention ICD within 40 days of a myocardial infarction. In multivariate analyses, family practice physicians and physicians residing in the western United States most often provided guideline-discordant answers, while cardiologists and those who refer to an electrophysiologist most often provided guideline-concordant answers. Primary care physicians who manage heart failure patients without referral to a subspecialist were not more likely to provide guideline-concordant answers.

conclusionsAnswers discordant with the primary prevention ICD guidelines were common, suggesting that referring physician beliefs are an important barrier to appropriate patient referrals for primary prevention ICD implantation.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesArrhythmias, CardiacDeath, Sudden, CardiacDefibrillators, ImplantableGuideline AdherenceHumansIncidenceMiddle AgedPatient SelectionPhysiciansPractice Guidelines as TopicPrimary PreventionReferral and ConsultationRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateUnited States

Identifiers

PMID22306794
PMCPMC3355218
OpenAlexW2039912834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.