CONTEXT: Allowing nonelectrophysiologists to perform implantable
cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) procedures is controversial. However,
it is not known whether outcomes of ICD implantation vary by physician
specialty.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of implanting
physician certification with outcomes following ICD implantation.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Retrospective cohort study using cases
submitted to the ICD Registry performed between January 2006 and June
2007. Patients were grouped by the certification status of the
implanting physician into mutually exclusive categories:
electrophysiologists, nonelectrophysiologist cardiologists, thoracic
surgeons, and other specialists. Hierarchical logistic regression
models were developed to determine the independent association of
physician certification with outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
In-hospital procedural complication rates and the proportion of
patients meeting criteria for a defibrillator with cardiac
resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) who received that device.
RESULTS: Of
111,293 ICD implantations included in the analysis, 78,857 (70.9%) were
performed by electrophysiologists, 24,399 (21.9%) by
nonelectrophysiologist cardiologists, 1862 (1.7%) by thoracic surgeons,
and 6175 (5.5%) by other specialists. Compared with patients whose ICD
was implanted by electrophysiologists, patients whose ICD was implanted
by either nonelectrophysiologist cardiologists or thoracic surgeons
were at increased risk of complications in both unadjusted
(electrophysiologists, 3.5% [2743/78,857]; nonelectrophysiologist
cardiologists, 4.0% [970/24,399]; thoracic surgeons, 5.8% [108/1862]; P
< .001) and adjusted analyses (relative risk [RR] for
nonelectrophysiologist cardiologists, 1.11 [95% confidence interval
{CI}, 1.01-1.21]; RR for thoracic surgeons, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.15-1.79]).
Among 35,841 patients who met criteria for CRT-D, those whose ICD was
implanted by physicians other than electrophysiologists were
significantly less likely to receive a CRT-D device compared with
patients whose ICD was implanted by an electrophysiologist in both
unadjusted (electrophysiologists, 83.1% [21 303/25,635];
nonelectrophysiologist cardiologists, 75.8% [5950/7849]; thoracic
surgeons, 57.8% [269/465]; other specialists, 74.8% [1416/1892]; P <
.001) and adjusted analyses (RR for nonelectrophysiologist
cardiologists, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.91-0.95]; RR for thoracic surgeons, 0.81
[95% CI, 0.74-0.88]; RR for other specialists, 0.97 [95% CI,
0.94-0.99]).
CONCLUSIONS: In this registry, nonelectrophysiologists
implanted 29% of ICDs. Overall, implantations by a
nonelectrophysiologist were associated with a higher risk of procedural
complications and lower likelihood of receiving a CRT-D device when
indicated compared with patients whose ICD was implanted by an
electrophysiologist.