ACCF/HRS/AHA/ASE/HFSA/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR 2013 appropriate use criteria for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy

Andrea M. Russo, Raymond F. Stainback, Steven R. Bailey, Andrew E. Epstein, Paul A. Heidenreich, Mariell Jessup, Suraj Kapa, Mark S. Kremers, Bruce D. Lindsay, Lynne Warner Stevenson, Michael B. Alexander, Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green, Alan S. Brown, Richard A. Grimm, Paul J. Hauptman, Sharon A. Hunt, Rachel Lampert, Joann Lindenfeld, David J. Malenka, Kartik ManiJoseph E. Marine, Edward T. Martin, Richard L. Page, Michael W. Rich, Paul D. Varosy, Mary Norine Walsh, Michael J. Wolk, John U. Doherty, Pamela S. Douglas, Robert C. Hendel, Christopher M. Kramer, James K. Min, Manesh R. Patel, Leslee Shaw, Joseph M. Allen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

231 Scopus citations

Abstract

The American College of Cardiology Foundation in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society and key specialty and subspecialty societies conducted a review of common clinical scenarios where implantable cardioverterdefibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are frequently considered. The clinical scenarios covered in this document address secondary prevention, primary prevention, comorbidities, generator replacement at elective replacement indicator, dual-chamber ICD, and CRT. The indications (clinical scenarios) were derived from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines and Results: of studies examining device implantation. The 369 indications in this document were developed by a multidisciplinary writing group and scored by a separate independent technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9 to designate care that is Appropriate (median 7 to 9), May Be Appropriate (median 4 to 6), and Rarely Appropriate (median 1 to 3). The final ratings reflect the median score of the 17 technical panel members: 45% of the indications were rated as Appropriate, 33% were rated May Be Appropriate and 22% were rated Rarely Appropriate. In general, Appropriate designations were assigned to scenarios for which clinical trial evidence and/or clinical experience was available that supported device implantation. By contrast, scenarios for which clinical trial evidence was limited or device implantation seemed reasonable for extenuating reasons were categorized as May Be Appropriate. Scenarios for which there were data showing harm, or no data were available, and medical judgment deemed device therapy ill-advised were categorized as Rarely Appropriate. For example, comorbidities including life expectancy and cognitive function impacted appropriateness ratings. The Appropriate Use Criteria for ICD/CRT have the potential to enhance physician decision making, healthcare delivery, and reimbursement policy. Furthermore, recognition of clinical scenarios rated as May Be Appropriate facilitates the identification of areas that would benefit from future research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1318-1368
Number of pages51
JournalJournal of the American College of Cardiology
Volume61
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 26 2013

Keywords

  • ACCF appropriate use criteria
  • CRT
  • Electrophysiology
  • Heart failure
  • ICD
  • Implantable defibrillator
  • Sudden death

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'ACCF/HRS/AHA/ASE/HFSA/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR 2013 appropriate use criteria for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this