Implantation Trends and Patient Profiles for Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in the United States: 1993–2006

Authors

  • STEVEN M. KURTZ Ph.D.,

    1. Exponent, Inc., and Implant Research Center, School of Biomedical Engineering, Science, and Heath Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    Search for more papers by this author
  • JORGE A. OCHOA Ph.D.,

    1. Exponent, Inc., and Implant Research Center, School of Biomedical Engineering, Science, and Heath Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
    Search for more papers by this author
  • EDMUND LAU M.S.,

    1. Exponent, Inc., and Implant Research Center, School of Biomedical Engineering, Science, and Heath Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    Search for more papers by this author
  • YAKOV SHKOLNIKOV Ph.D.,

    1. Exponent, Inc., and Implant Research Center, School of Biomedical Engineering, Science, and Heath Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    Search for more papers by this author
  • BEHZAD B. PAVRI M.D.,

    1. Jefferson Heart Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    Search for more papers by this author
  • DANIEL FRISCH M.D.,

    1. Jefferson Heart Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    Search for more papers by this author
  • ARNOLD J. GREENSPON M.D.

    1. Jefferson Heart Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Disclosures: none.

Address for reprints: Jorge A. Ochoa, Ph.D., P.E., 15375 SE 30th Place, Suite 250, Bellevue, WA 98007. Fax: 425 519-8799; e-mail: jochoa@exponent.com

Abstract

Background: Prior studies of cardiac rhythm management devices (pacemakers [PM] and implantable cardioverter defibrillators [ICD]) utilization in the United States have been limited to the Medicare population. We evaluated the national trends for the implantation of PMs and ICDs including the burden of device replacement.

Methods: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried to identify PM and ICD patients between 1993 and 2006 using ICD-9-CM codes, including demographics, health profile, and economic data. The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and replacement burden were calculated, and changes over time studied.

Results: From 1993 to 2006, 2.4 million patients received a primary PM and 0.8 million received an ICD, while there were 369,000 PM replacements and 74,000 ICD replacements. Women comprised 49% of PM and 24% of ICD patients. The mean ICD replacement burden was 8.4% (range 5–22%) and decreased significantly over time (P < 0.0001) while the replacement burden for PMs was constant (mean = 13.4%, range 11–16%). ICD patients had more comorbidities than PM patients (CCI: 0.8 vs 1.1, P < 0.0001).

Conclusions: The replacement burden for PMs has remained constant, while the replacement burden for ICDs has decreased. This is likely due to the stability of the patient population receiving PMs and technology maturity. Alternatively, the indications for ICD implantation have broadened, resulting in an increased number of primary ICD implantations. The age and comorbidities are increasing in those patients receiving ICDs while the PM population is stable. These data suggest that monitoring of replacement burden is warranted, given the changing populations, their disparate clinical outcomes, and economic implications to the health care system. (PACE 2010; 33:705–711)

Ancillary