Comparison of new implantation of cardiac implantable electronic device between tertiary and non-tertiary hospitals: a Korean nationwide study

Abstract

This study compared the characteristics and mortality of new implantation of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) between tertiary and non-tertiary hospitals. From national health insurance claims data in Korea, 17,655 patients, who underwent first and new implantation of CIED between 2013 and 2017, were enrolled. Patients were categorized into the tertiary hospital group (n = 11,560) and non-tertiary hospital group (n = 6095). Clinical outcomes including in-hospital death and all-cause death were compared between the two groups using propensity-score matched analysis. Patients in non-tertiary hospitals were older and had more comorbidities than those in tertiary hospitals. The study population had a mean follow-up of 2.1 ± 1.2 years. In the propensity-score matched permanent pacemaker group (n = 5076 pairs), the incidence of in-hospital death (odds ratio [OR]: 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43–1.32, p = 0.33) and all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.92, 95% CI 0.81–1.05, p = 0.24) were not significantly different between tertiary and non-tertiary hospitals. These findings were consistently observed in the propensity-score matched implantable cardioverter-defibrillator group (n = 992 pairs, OR for in-hospital death: 1.76, 95% CI 0.51–6.02, p = 0.37; HR for all-cause death: 0.95, 95% CI 0.72–1.24, p = 0.70). In patients undergoing first and new implantation of CIED in Korea, mortality was not different between tertiary and non-tertiary hospitals.