Background: Both highly specialized heart centres and less specialized hospitals care for patients with implantable ICDs/CRT-Ds with remote monitoring.
Objective: To investigate potential differences in patient treatment according to centre's ICD implantation volume.
Methods: Based on their 2012 ICD/CRT-D implantation volume, centres enrolled in the NORDIC ICD trial in Germany were assigned to one of three groups: high- (HV, n= 345), medium- (MV, n= 340) or low-volume (LV, n= 189).
Results: The HV-centres had a significant higher CRT-D proportion (41.7%; LV: 36.5%; MV: 23.2%; P𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙< 0.001), significant shorter median procedure duration (49 min; MV: 58 min; LV: 60 min; P𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙< 0.001) but significant longer median hospital stay (4 days; MV and LV: 3 days; P𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙< 0.001) compared to MV- and LV-centres. The X-ray exposure was shorter in MV/HV-centres (MV: 3.4 min; HV: 3.6 min; LV: 5.5 min; P𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙< 0.001). Only 3.5% (LV: 2.6%; HV: 3.5%; MV: 4.1%) patients received at least one delivered inappropriate shock and 2.5% (HV: 2.0%; LV: 2.6%; MV: 2.9%) patients had withheld inappropriate ICD shocks without subsequent inappropriate shock delivery within 24.5 months of median follow-up.
Conclusion: Implantation volume-dependent differences were observed in the device selection, procedure duration and x-ray exposure duration. Remote monitoring in combination with adequate response pattern prevented imminent inappropriate shocks in all three groups.
Keywords: Defibrillators; cardiac resynchronization therapy; high-volume; home monitoring; hospitals; implantable; low-volume.