Consideration for primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators differ between specialities

Purpose Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation rates remain variable despite established guideline recommendations. This study aims to assess whether being managed by a cardiologist has an impact on whether patients are considered for an ICD for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. Design/Methods Single-centre, retrospective, observational study of patients identified to have severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) on echocardiography (n = 129) between 1 and 30 June 2016 with cross-sectional assessment at 1 year. An assessment of ICD consideration at 1 year following the echocardiogram was documented, in addition to the specialty of the managing physician (group 1—electrophysiologist/heart failure specialist; group 2—all other cardiologists; group 3—non-cardiologist). Results 129/1173 (11%) transthoracic echocardiographies (s) were identified to have severe LVSD. 52 (40%), 37 (29%) and 40 (31%) were managed by group 1, group 2 and group 3, respectively. Mean age was 74.7 (±12.6) years with a predominance of male gender (70.5%). An ICD was not considered in 47.3%. Those managed by a cardiologist were more likely to be considered for an ICD than a non-cardiologist (63.9% vs 30.0%; OR 4.0, 95% CI 1.8 to 8.8, p = 0.001) with a greater survival at 1 year (89.9% vs 52.5%, OR 8.1 95% CI 3.2 to 20.4, p Conclusion There is significant variation between cardiologists and non-cardiologists, as well as within different cardiology subspecialists, when considering the option of ICD therapy for primary prevention.