ArticleHeart rhythm2012
Referring physicians' discordance with the primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator guidelines: a national survey.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Utilization rates of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death: a 2012 calculation for a midwestern health referral region.Heart rhythm · 2014Trial
- Trial
- Use of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death in Asia.JACC. Asia · 2023Review
- Clinician use of data elements from cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in clinical practice.Cardiovascular digital health journal · 2023Article
- Improve the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Arrest in Patients With Post-Acute Myocardial Infarction.JACC. Asia · 2022Article
- Patients' knowledge and concerns about using the implantable cardioverter defibrillator for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death and its correlates: A cross-sectional study.Health science reports · 2022Article
- Clinical and Hospital Factors Affecting Treatment with Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Patients.Yonsei medical journal · 2020Observational
- Temporal Trends of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantations: a Nationwide Population-based Study.Korean circulation journal · 2019Article
- Stable but Progressive Nature of Heart Failure: Considerations for Primary Care Physicians.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2018Review
- Physicians' knowledge and attitudes in Saudi Arabia regarding implantable cardiac defibrillators.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2018Article
- Article
- 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 · 2013Review
- ICD Implantation Practice Within Europe: How To Explain The Differences Beyond Economy?Journal of atrial fibrillationReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.