LAUSR

OBJECTIVES Whether insurance status influences practice patterns in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) defibrillators, when indicated, is not known. METHODS AND RESULTS We analyzed the NCDR ICD Registry to evaluate associations of insurance status with guidelines-based receipt of CRT, as well as device-type, complication rates, and use of optimal medical therapy (OMT) defined by guidelines. Among 798,028 patients with de novo ICD implants, we included only patients < 65 years (those older have Medicare) and excluded those admitted before 2006 (n=1,835) or with insurance coverage other than Medicare, Medicaid or private insurance (n=25,695) leaving 286,556 for analysis. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to control for imbalances between groups. Mean age was 53 years, 29% were female. Patients with private insurance and Medicare were more likely to receive CRT-D when indicated (79.6%, OR 1.19 95% CI 1.09-1.28, P<0.001 and 78.5%, OR 1.11 95% CI 1.01-1.21 P=0.03, respectively) compared to the uninsured (76.7%). The uninsured were also more likely than other groups to receive a single-chamber device. Complication rates did not differ. Uninsured patients were, however, more likely to receive optimal medical therapy, particularly in the subgroup receiving the implant for primary prevention. CONCLUSIONS In propensity-weighted analysis, uninsured patients are less likely to receive CRT when indicated but more likely to be receiving OMT at discharge. Reasons for differences in device implantation practices based on insurance status require further study.