Feedback to providers improves evidence-based implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and reduces shocks

Marc T. Silver, Laurence D. Sterns, Jonathan P. Piccini, Boyoung Joung, Chi Keong Ching, Robert A. Pickett, Rafael Rabinovich, Shufeng Liu, Brett J. Peterson, Daniel R. Lexcen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks are associated with increased anxiety, health care utilization, and potentially mortality. Objective The purpose of the Shock-Less Study was to determine if providing feedback reports to physicians on their adherence to evidence-based shock reduction programming could improve their programming behavior and reduce shocks. Methods Shock-Less enrolled primary prevention (PP) and secondary prevention (SP) ICD patients between 2009 and 2012 at 118 study centers worldwide and followed patients longitudinally after their ICD implant. Center-specific therapy programming reports (TPRs) were delivered to each center 9 to 12 months after their first enrollment. The reports detailed adherence to evidence-based programming targets: number of intervals to detect ventricular fibrillation (VF NID), longest treatment interval (LTI), supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) discriminators (Wavelet, PR Logic), SVT limit, Lead Integrity Alert (LIA), and antitachycardia pacing (ATP). Clinicians programmed ICDs at their discretion. The primary outcome measure was the change in utilization of evidence-based shock reduction programming before (phase I, n = 2694 patients) and after initiation of the TPR (phase II, n = 1438 patients). Results Patients implanted after feedback reports (phase II) were up to 20% more likely to have their ICDs programmed in line with evidence-based shock reduction programming (eg, VF NID in PP patients 30/40 in 33.5% vs 18.6%, P <.0001). Patients implanted in phase II had a lower risk of all-cause shock (adjusted hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.58-0.90, P =.003). Conclusion Providing programming feedback reports improves adherence to evidence-based shock reduction programming and is associated with lower risk of ICD shocks.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)545-553
Number of pages9
JournalHeart Rhythm
Volume12
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015 Mar 1

Fingerprint

Implantable Defibrillators
Shock
Supraventricular Tachycardia
Primary Prevention
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
Ventricular Fibrillation
Secondary Prevention
Therapeutics
Anxiety
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Confidence Intervals
Physicians
Mortality

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this

Silver, M. T., Sterns, L. D., Piccini, J. P., Joung, B., Ching, C. K., Pickett, R. A., ... Lexcen, D. R. (2015). Feedback to providers improves evidence-based implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and reduces shocks. Heart Rhythm, 12(3), 545-553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.11.002
Silver, Marc T. ; Sterns, Laurence D. ; Piccini, Jonathan P. ; Joung, Boyoung ; Ching, Chi Keong ; Pickett, Robert A. ; Rabinovich, Rafael ; Liu, Shufeng ; Peterson, Brett J. ; Lexcen, Daniel R. / Feedback to providers improves evidence-based implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and reduces shocks. In: Heart Rhythm. 2015 ; Vol. 12, No. 3. pp. 545-553.
@article{ff2286fbd1cb4d65a0c2a31ad4f25407,
title = "Feedback to providers improves evidence-based implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and reduces shocks",
abstract = "Background Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks are associated with increased anxiety, health care utilization, and potentially mortality. Objective The purpose of the Shock-Less Study was to determine if providing feedback reports to physicians on their adherence to evidence-based shock reduction programming could improve their programming behavior and reduce shocks. Methods Shock-Less enrolled primary prevention (PP) and secondary prevention (SP) ICD patients between 2009 and 2012 at 118 study centers worldwide and followed patients longitudinally after their ICD implant. Center-specific therapy programming reports (TPRs) were delivered to each center 9 to 12 months after their first enrollment. The reports detailed adherence to evidence-based programming targets: number of intervals to detect ventricular fibrillation (VF NID), longest treatment interval (LTI), supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) discriminators (Wavelet, PR Logic), SVT limit, Lead Integrity Alert (LIA), and antitachycardia pacing (ATP). Clinicians programmed ICDs at their discretion. The primary outcome measure was the change in utilization of evidence-based shock reduction programming before (phase I, n = 2694 patients) and after initiation of the TPR (phase II, n = 1438 patients). Results Patients implanted after feedback reports (phase II) were up to 20{\%} more likely to have their ICDs programmed in line with evidence-based shock reduction programming (eg, VF NID in PP patients 30/40 in 33.5{\%} vs 18.6{\%}, P <.0001). Patients implanted in phase II had a lower risk of all-cause shock (adjusted hazard ratio 0.72, 95{\%} confidence interval 0.58-0.90, P =.003). Conclusion Providing programming feedback reports improves adherence to evidence-based shock reduction programming and is associated with lower risk of ICD shocks.",
author = "Silver, {Marc T.} and Sterns, {Laurence D.} and Piccini, {Jonathan P.} and Boyoung Joung and Ching, {Chi Keong} and Pickett, {Robert A.} and Rafael Rabinovich and Shufeng Liu and Peterson, {Brett J.} and Lexcen, {Daniel R.}",
year = "2015",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.11.002",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "545--553",
journal = "Heart Rhythm",
issn = "1547-5271",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3",

}

Silver, MT, Sterns, LD, Piccini, JP, Joung, B, Ching, CK, Pickett, RA, Rabinovich, R, Liu, S, Peterson, BJ & Lexcen, DR 2015, 'Feedback to providers improves evidence-based implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and reduces shocks', Heart Rhythm, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 545-553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.11.002

Feedback to providers improves evidence-based implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and reduces shocks. / Silver, Marc T.; Sterns, Laurence D.; Piccini, Jonathan P.; Joung, Boyoung; Ching, Chi Keong; Pickett, Robert A.; Rabinovich, Rafael; Liu, Shufeng; Peterson, Brett J.; Lexcen, Daniel R.

In: Heart Rhythm, Vol. 12, No. 3, 01.03.2015, p. 545-553.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Feedback to providers improves evidence-based implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and reduces shocks

AU - Silver, Marc T.

AU - Sterns, Laurence D.

AU - Piccini, Jonathan P.

AU - Joung, Boyoung

AU - Ching, Chi Keong

AU - Pickett, Robert A.

AU - Rabinovich, Rafael

AU - Liu, Shufeng

AU - Peterson, Brett J.

AU - Lexcen, Daniel R.

PY - 2015/3/1

Y1 - 2015/3/1

N2 - Background Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks are associated with increased anxiety, health care utilization, and potentially mortality. Objective The purpose of the Shock-Less Study was to determine if providing feedback reports to physicians on their adherence to evidence-based shock reduction programming could improve their programming behavior and reduce shocks. Methods Shock-Less enrolled primary prevention (PP) and secondary prevention (SP) ICD patients between 2009 and 2012 at 118 study centers worldwide and followed patients longitudinally after their ICD implant. Center-specific therapy programming reports (TPRs) were delivered to each center 9 to 12 months after their first enrollment. The reports detailed adherence to evidence-based programming targets: number of intervals to detect ventricular fibrillation (VF NID), longest treatment interval (LTI), supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) discriminators (Wavelet, PR Logic), SVT limit, Lead Integrity Alert (LIA), and antitachycardia pacing (ATP). Clinicians programmed ICDs at their discretion. The primary outcome measure was the change in utilization of evidence-based shock reduction programming before (phase I, n = 2694 patients) and after initiation of the TPR (phase II, n = 1438 patients). Results Patients implanted after feedback reports (phase II) were up to 20% more likely to have their ICDs programmed in line with evidence-based shock reduction programming (eg, VF NID in PP patients 30/40 in 33.5% vs 18.6%, P <.0001). Patients implanted in phase II had a lower risk of all-cause shock (adjusted hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.58-0.90, P =.003). Conclusion Providing programming feedback reports improves adherence to evidence-based shock reduction programming and is associated with lower risk of ICD shocks.

AB - Background Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks are associated with increased anxiety, health care utilization, and potentially mortality. Objective The purpose of the Shock-Less Study was to determine if providing feedback reports to physicians on their adherence to evidence-based shock reduction programming could improve their programming behavior and reduce shocks. Methods Shock-Less enrolled primary prevention (PP) and secondary prevention (SP) ICD patients between 2009 and 2012 at 118 study centers worldwide and followed patients longitudinally after their ICD implant. Center-specific therapy programming reports (TPRs) were delivered to each center 9 to 12 months after their first enrollment. The reports detailed adherence to evidence-based programming targets: number of intervals to detect ventricular fibrillation (VF NID), longest treatment interval (LTI), supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) discriminators (Wavelet, PR Logic), SVT limit, Lead Integrity Alert (LIA), and antitachycardia pacing (ATP). Clinicians programmed ICDs at their discretion. The primary outcome measure was the change in utilization of evidence-based shock reduction programming before (phase I, n = 2694 patients) and after initiation of the TPR (phase II, n = 1438 patients). Results Patients implanted after feedback reports (phase II) were up to 20% more likely to have their ICDs programmed in line with evidence-based shock reduction programming (eg, VF NID in PP patients 30/40 in 33.5% vs 18.6%, P <.0001). Patients implanted in phase II had a lower risk of all-cause shock (adjusted hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.58-0.90, P =.003). Conclusion Providing programming feedback reports improves adherence to evidence-based shock reduction programming and is associated with lower risk of ICD shocks.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84924068839&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84924068839&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.11.002

DO - 10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.11.002

M3 - Article

C2 - 25460168

AN - SCOPUS:84924068839

VL - 12

SP - 545

EP - 553

JO - Heart Rhythm

JF - Heart Rhythm

SN - 1547-5271

IS - 3

ER -