Abstract

Aims

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a major health concern in developed countries. Many studies have demonstrated the efficacy of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy in the prevention of SCD and total mortality reduction. However, the high individual costs and the reimbursement policy may limit widespread ICD utilization.

Methods and results

This study analyzed the temporal and the geographical trends of the ICD implantation rate. Data were gathered from two editions of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) White Books published in 2008 and 2009. The analysis revealed significant differences in the rates of ICD implantation per million capita between the countries, but the median implantations was constantly increasing. The number of ICD implantations correlated with gross domestic product (GDP), GDP per capita, expenditure on health, life expectancy, and the number of implanting centres.

Conclusion

There are great number of differences in the ICD-implanting rates between EHRA member countries, consequent to the increase in the number of ICD implantations. The ICD implantation rates are related to national economic status and healthcare expenses.

Introduction

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) claims ∼450 000 victims annually in the USA.1

While no official statistics are reported in Europe, the very similar cardiovascular risk profile of Western Europeans implies that the SCD number must be similar. Thus, SCD is responsible for more deaths than cancers, stroke, and AIDS combined.1,2 Many studies have demonstrated the efficacy of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy in the prevention of SCD and total mortality reduction.3–7 The European guidelines published in 2006 are intended to assist healthcare providers by describing a range of acceptable approaches for utilization of ICD therapy in selected patients for primary and secondary prevention of SCD.8 However, despite the established European guidelines for the implantation of ICDs, the rate of implantation varies between countries. Therefore, the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) launched a project to assess the treatment of arrhythmias in all European Society of Cardiology (ESC) member countries, thereby creating a platform for a progressive harmonization of arrhythmia treatment. As a result, two EHRA White Books were published in 2008 and 2009.9,10 The White Book provides information about the status of cardiac electrophysiology, demographic, economic, and healthcare data.

The study analysed temporal and geographical trends of the ICD implantation rate in the years 2006–08 in the European Society of Cardiology member countries and identified the determinants for geographical variations.

Methods

Data were gathered from the EHRA White Book publications.9,10 A total of 41 countries—members of the ESC—provided comprehensive data and were included in the analysis. The list of participating countries is presented in Table 1. It should be noted that demographic or economic data were dated a few years earlier in some cases, but did not exceed 3 years. Implantation data from the years 2006, 2007, and 2008 have been analysed. To gather data on specific items, a questionnaire was constructed. Each chairperson of the societies and/or working groups was asked to provide data for each item. Many of the countries used their national registry as the data source. In other countries, the presidents of the societies conducted a national survey or used national health institutions’ data or other available sources. To validate the gathered data, presidents of the different working groups and national societies were contacted and asked to verify and authorize all the information that became available through these various sources. In cases where valid data were not available, the data were not presented. The detailed process of collecting data to the White Book was presented by Merkely et al.11 The analysed variables included:

  1. ICD implantations per million of the population in the years 2006, 2007, and 2008.

  2. Single- vs. dual-chamber ICDs implantations (in several countries these data were not available).

  3. Number of implanting centres per 1 million population.

  4. Number of ICD implantations per centre annually.

  5. Correlations between ICD implantations per million and:

    • National gross domestic product (GDP) or expenditure on health.

    • Number of implanting centres per 1 million inhabitants.

    • Density of physicians.

    • Number of hospitals or beds.

    • Life expectancy at birth.

Table 1

Demographic, economic, and insurance data

 Population, million 2008 GDP, Euro/capita Health expenditure, Euro/capita Government health expenditure (%) Public insurance (%) ICD reimbursement 
Armenia 2 968 586 3401 160 41.2 35 Yes 
Austria 8 205 533 52 159 5164 77 83 Yes 
Belarus 9 658 768 6058 388 74.9 100 Yes 
Belgium 10 403 951 49 430 4696 71.1 90 Yes 
Bulgaria 7 262 675 6849 473 59.8 63 No 
Croatia 4 491 543 14 414 1081 80.1 90 No 
Cyprus 792 604 32 195 2028 44.8 70 No 
Czech Republic 10 220 911 21 041 1431 87.9 100 Yes 
Denmark 5 484 723 67 387 6402 84 100 No 
Egypt 81 713 517 2109 133 40.7 54 No 
Estonia 1 307 605 18 810 940 74.2 99 Yes 
Finland 5 244 749 54 578 4148 78.5 76 Yes 
France 64 057 790 48 012 5329 79.7 100 Yes 
Georgia 4 630 841 3061 257 21.5 25 Yes 
Germany 82 369 548 49 499 5148 76.6 90 Yes 
Greece 10 722 816 33 434 3310 42.5 89 Yes 
Hungary 9 930 915 16 343 1242 70.8 100 Yes 
Iceland 304 367 60 122 5591 83.1 100 No 
Ireland 4 156 119 64 660 4849 78.3 32 Yes 
Israel 7 112 359 26 536 2070 65.3 94 Yes 
Italy 58 145 321 40 450 3640 77.1 100 Yes 
Latvia 2 245 423 14 930 896 63.2 90 Yes 
Lebanon 3 971 941 7376 656 46.8 60 Yes 
Lithuania 3 565 205 14 456 896 70 100 Yes 
Luxembourg 486 006 118 045 8499 90.6 100 Yes 
FYROM 2 061 315 4683 384 71.6 90 No 
Netherlands 16 645 313 54 445 5063 81.8 Yes 
Norway 4 644 457 102 525 8920 83.6 100 Yes 
Poland 38 500 696 14 893 923 69.9 90 Yes 
Portugal 10 676 910 24 031 2403 71.8 85 Yes 
Romania 22 246 862 9953 567 71 57 Yes 
Russia 140 702 094 12 579 667 63.2 Yes 
Serbia 7 413 882 7054 536 71 100 Yes 
Slovakia 5 455 407 18 585 1301 73.9 75 Yes 
Slovenia 2 007 711 28 328 2380 73 85 Yes 
Spain 40 491 051 36 970 2995 72.5 100 Yes 
Sweden 9 045 389 55 624 4951 81.2 100 Yes 
Switzerland 7 581 520 67 379 7614 60.3 34 Yes 
Tunisia 10 383 577 4032 214 43.7 80 Yes 
Turkey 71 892 807 9629 741 72.3 95 Yes 
UK 60 943 912 45 681 3837 87.4 90 Yes 
 Population, million 2008 GDP, Euro/capita Health expenditure, Euro/capita Government health expenditure (%) Public insurance (%) ICD reimbursement 
Armenia 2 968 586 3401 160 41.2 35 Yes 
Austria 8 205 533 52 159 5164 77 83 Yes 
Belarus 9 658 768 6058 388 74.9 100 Yes 
Belgium 10 403 951 49 430 4696 71.1 90 Yes 
Bulgaria 7 262 675 6849 473 59.8 63 No 
Croatia 4 491 543 14 414 1081 80.1 90 No 
Cyprus 792 604 32 195 2028 44.8 70 No 
Czech Republic 10 220 911 21 041 1431 87.9 100 Yes 
Denmark 5 484 723 67 387 6402 84 100 No 
Egypt 81 713 517 2109 133 40.7 54 No 
Estonia 1 307 605 18 810 940 74.2 99 Yes 
Finland 5 244 749 54 578 4148 78.5 76 Yes 
France 64 057 790 48 012 5329 79.7 100 Yes 
Georgia 4 630 841 3061 257 21.5 25 Yes 
Germany 82 369 548 49 499 5148 76.6 90 Yes 
Greece 10 722 816 33 434 3310 42.5 89 Yes 
Hungary 9 930 915 16 343 1242 70.8 100 Yes 
Iceland 304 367 60 122 5591 83.1 100 No 
Ireland 4 156 119 64 660 4849 78.3 32 Yes 
Israel 7 112 359 26 536 2070 65.3 94 Yes 
Italy 58 145 321 40 450 3640 77.1 100 Yes 
Latvia 2 245 423 14 930 896 63.2 90 Yes 
Lebanon 3 971 941 7376 656 46.8 60 Yes 
Lithuania 3 565 205 14 456 896 70 100 Yes 
Luxembourg 486 006 118 045 8499 90.6 100 Yes 
FYROM 2 061 315 4683 384 71.6 90 No 
Netherlands 16 645 313 54 445 5063 81.8 Yes 
Norway 4 644 457 102 525 8920 83.6 100 Yes 
Poland 38 500 696 14 893 923 69.9 90 Yes 
Portugal 10 676 910 24 031 2403 71.8 85 Yes 
Romania 22 246 862 9953 567 71 57 Yes 
Russia 140 702 094 12 579 667 63.2 Yes 
Serbia 7 413 882 7054 536 71 100 Yes 
Slovakia 5 455 407 18 585 1301 73.9 75 Yes 
Slovenia 2 007 711 28 328 2380 73 85 Yes 
Spain 40 491 051 36 970 2995 72.5 100 Yes 
Sweden 9 045 389 55 624 4951 81.2 100 Yes 
Switzerland 7 581 520 67 379 7614 60.3 34 Yes 
Tunisia 10 383 577 4032 214 43.7 80 Yes 
Turkey 71 892 807 9629 741 72.3 95 Yes 
UK 60 943 912 45 681 3837 87.4 90 Yes 

Statistical analysis

For comparison, data are shown as mean and median. Shapiro–Wilk W test was used to test for a normal distribution. Correlations were performed using Spearman's correlation tests. A P value of <0.05 was considered significant.

Results

The analysis revealed significant differences in the rates of ICD implantations per million capita between the countries (Figure 1). Highest numbers of implants per million annually in 2008 was in Italy, Germany, and Denmark. In almost all countries, increasing numbers of ICD implantations from the years 2006 to 2008 were observed (Figure 2). The median implantations per million was constantly increasing from 39 in the year 2006 to 75 in the year 2008. Table 2 presents percentiles of the implantation rate. The mean growth of implantations per million between 2006 and 2008 was 33.6 ± 34.3 (87%)—from −2.5 to 125.5 implantations per million. Some countries, such as Switzerland, Slovakia, and Poland, had increased their implantation rate by 1.5 times.

Table 2

The distribution of the ICD implantation rates in the years 2006 and 2008

Number ICDs/million Percentiles
 
 10 25 50 75 90 95 
2006 1.4 3.2 11.4 39.2 73.4 116.7 142.0 
2008 1.4 3.4 16.9 75.1 134.1 195.5 235.5 
Number ICDs/million Percentiles
 
 10 25 50 75 90 95 
2006 1.4 3.2 11.4 39.2 73.4 116.7 142.0 
2008 1.4 3.4 16.9 75.1 134.1 195.5 235.5 
Figure 1

Number of implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantations per million inhabitants in the years 2006–08. The data sorted according to implantations in the year 2008.

Figure 1

Number of implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantations per million inhabitants in the years 2006–08. The data sorted according to implantations in the year 2008.

Figure 2

Changes in the implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation in 2006–08 per million inhabitants. Percentiles of implantation rate in the year 2006 marked with different colours.

Figure 2

Changes in the implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation in 2006–08 per million inhabitants. Percentiles of implantation rate in the year 2006 marked with different colours.

The utility of single- vs. dual-chamber ICDs varied considerably from country to country. The distribution of single- and dual-chamber device utilization in the mentioned countries is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3

Percentage of implanted single- and dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators in the year 2008. Average 60% were single-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

Figure 3

Percentage of implanted single- and dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators in the year 2008. Average 60% were single-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

The analysis revealed that the number of ICD implanting centres also significantly varies between countries, from 0.1 to 6.88 per million populations. The mean number of implantations per centre varies from 2 to 251, and the median is 43. The data are presented in Table 3.

Table 3

ICD implantation data

 ICD/million population 2008 Change 2006–2008, ICD/million population % of single-chamber ICDs 2008 ICD implanting centres/million population Number of ICD implantation per centre EP subspecialty National ICD guidelines 
Armenia 34.7 +22.1 21 0.67 52 No No 
Austria 134.1 +24.9 51 3.90 34 No No 
Belarus 4.1 +3.6 38 0.21 20 Yes Yes 
Belgium 153.8 +28.7 63 1.92 80 No Yes 
Bulgaria 1.2 n.a. 100 0.69 No No 
Croatia 18.5 +6.7 n.a. 1.11 17 No No 
Cyprus 44.2 n.a. n.a. 3.78 12 No No 
Czech Republic 196.9 +72.7 67 1.47 134 Yes Yes 
Denmark 228.8 +125.5 53 0.91 251 No Yes 
Egypt 0.2 n.a. 63 0.10 Yes Yes 
Estonia 13.8 +2.3 39 1.53 No No 
Finland 31.5 +88.6 65 3.05 56 No Yes 
France 128.0 +62.6 n.a. 1.25 103 No Yes 
Georgia 2.4 +0.9 100 0.86 No No 
Germany 262.2 +69.5 63 4.37 60 No Yes 
Greece 93.1 +55.9 23 2.14 43 No No 
Hungary 75.6 +38.3 68 1.21 63 Yes Yes 
Iceland 141.3 n.a. 55 3.29 43 No No 
Ireland 79.2* n.a. n.a. 2.89 n.a. No Yes 
Israel 108.1 +23.3 34 2.39 45 No No 
Italy 309.6 +79.1 n.a. 6.88 45 No Yes 
Latvia 16.9 +9.5 39 0.89 19 Yes Yes 
Lebanon 27.7 −2.5 91 2.52 11 No No 
Lithuania 14.3 +9.8 67 0.84 17 No No 
Luxembourg 84.4 +21.9 86 2.06 41 No No 
FYROM 1.5 −2.0 100 0.49 No No 
Netherlands 194.5 +87.2 n.a. 1.02 190 Yes Yes 
Norway 126.8* n.a. n.a. 2.58 n.a. No No 
Poland 91.2 +56.2 72 1.64 56 Yes No 
Portugal 68.1 +23.7 88 1.87 36 Yes No 
Romania 4.8 +1.8 n.a. 0.54 No No 
Russia 2.3* n.a. n.a. 0.28 n.a. Yes Yes 
Serbia 31.3 +12.9 74 0.67 46 No No 
Slovakia 103.4 +63.8 66 0.73 141 Yes Yes 
Slovenia 47.8 +9.0 85 1.00 48 No No 
Spain 86.1 +36.0 69 2.82 31 Yes Yes 
Sweden 75.2 +34.1 37 1.66 45 No Yes 
Switzerland 155.5 +98.2 41 3.69 42 No Yes 
Tunisia 6.1 +2.2 n.a. 0.77 Yes No 
Turkey 12.5* n.a. n.a n.a. n.a. No No 
United Kingdom 73.8 +11.3 42 0.87 85 No Yes 
 ICD/million population 2008 Change 2006–2008, ICD/million population % of single-chamber ICDs 2008 ICD implanting centres/million population Number of ICD implantation per centre EP subspecialty National ICD guidelines 
Armenia 34.7 +22.1 21 0.67 52 No No 
Austria 134.1 +24.9 51 3.90 34 No No 
Belarus 4.1 +3.6 38 0.21 20 Yes Yes 
Belgium 153.8 +28.7 63 1.92 80 No Yes 
Bulgaria 1.2 n.a. 100 0.69 No No 
Croatia 18.5 +6.7 n.a. 1.11 17 No No 
Cyprus 44.2 n.a. n.a. 3.78 12 No No 
Czech Republic 196.9 +72.7 67 1.47 134 Yes Yes 
Denmark 228.8 +125.5 53 0.91 251 No Yes 
Egypt 0.2 n.a. 63 0.10 Yes Yes 
Estonia 13.8 +2.3 39 1.53 No No 
Finland 31.5 +88.6 65 3.05 56 No Yes 
France 128.0 +62.6 n.a. 1.25 103 No Yes 
Georgia 2.4 +0.9 100 0.86 No No 
Germany 262.2 +69.5 63 4.37 60 No Yes 
Greece 93.1 +55.9 23 2.14 43 No No 
Hungary 75.6 +38.3 68 1.21 63 Yes Yes 
Iceland 141.3 n.a. 55 3.29 43 No No 
Ireland 79.2* n.a. n.a. 2.89 n.a. No Yes 
Israel 108.1 +23.3 34 2.39 45 No No 
Italy 309.6 +79.1 n.a. 6.88 45 No Yes 
Latvia 16.9 +9.5 39 0.89 19 Yes Yes 
Lebanon 27.7 −2.5 91 2.52 11 No No 
Lithuania 14.3 +9.8 67 0.84 17 No No 
Luxembourg 84.4 +21.9 86 2.06 41 No No 
FYROM 1.5 −2.0 100 0.49 No No 
Netherlands 194.5 +87.2 n.a. 1.02 190 Yes Yes 
Norway 126.8* n.a. n.a. 2.58 n.a. No No 
Poland 91.2 +56.2 72 1.64 56 Yes No 
Portugal 68.1 +23.7 88 1.87 36 Yes No 
Romania 4.8 +1.8 n.a. 0.54 No No 
Russia 2.3* n.a. n.a. 0.28 n.a. Yes Yes 
Serbia 31.3 +12.9 74 0.67 46 No No 
Slovakia 103.4 +63.8 66 0.73 141 Yes Yes 
Slovenia 47.8 +9.0 85 1.00 48 No No 
Spain 86.1 +36.0 69 2.82 31 Yes Yes 
Sweden 75.2 +34.1 37 1.66 45 No Yes 
Switzerland 155.5 +98.2 41 3.69 42 No Yes 
Tunisia 6.1 +2.2 n.a. 0.77 Yes No 
Turkey 12.5* n.a. n.a n.a. n.a. No No 
United Kingdom 73.8 +11.3 42 0.87 85 No Yes 

n.a., no data available.

*Data from 2007.

The analysis of the relationship between ICD implantations per million population in 2008 with economic data revealed significant correlations between the number of ICD implantations and the GDP (r= 0.68, P< 0.0001), the GDP per capita (r= 0.79, P< 0.0001), and the expenditure on health (r= 0.69, P< 0.0001). The type of implanted ICD—single or dual chamber—did not correlate with GDP and expenditure on health. Of interest, is that a significant correlation was found between life expectancy and implantation rates (r= 0.71, P< 0.0001). A weak correlation was observed between density of physicians and ICD implant rates (r= 0.35, P= 0.04). Also, strong positive correlation between the number of implanting centres per million and the ICD implantations per million population was observed (r= 0.68, P< 0.0001).

No correlation was found between healthcare indices like: number of hospitals or beds, and ICD implantation rates. In addition, the presence of a subspecialty in cardiac electrophysiology had no influence on implantation rates (Table 4).

Table 4

Analysis of correlations between ICD implantations and economic and healthcare data

ICD implantations per million in the year 2008 
GDP r = 0.68 P < 0.0001 
GDP per capita r = 0.79 P < 0.0001 
Total expenditure on health r = 0.69 P < 0.0001 
Life expectancy at birth r = 0.71 P < 0.0001 
Number of implanting centres per million inhabitants r = 0.68 P < 0.0001 
Density of physicians r = 0.35 P = 0.04 
Hospitals ns 
Beds ns 
Population over 65 years old ns 
ICD implantations per million in the year 2008 
GDP r = 0.68 P < 0.0001 
GDP per capita r = 0.79 P < 0.0001 
Total expenditure on health r = 0.69 P < 0.0001 
Life expectancy at birth r = 0.71 P < 0.0001 
Number of implanting centres per million inhabitants r = 0.68 P < 0.0001 
Density of physicians r = 0.35 P = 0.04 
Hospitals ns 
Beds ns 
Population over 65 years old ns 

(r), correlation coefficient; ns, non-significant.

Discussion

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator utilization

The ESC guidelines for the use of ICDs8 were published and accepted in numerous European countries, long before the beginning of the data collection in the White Book. Despite these acknowledged guidelines, ICD implantation rates remain significantly different among the ESC member countries. Not only economic factors affect these differences. There is an open space for activity of scientific organizations, such as, EHRA to foster discussion and offer education to increase awareness of the risk of SCD and appropriate ways of its prevention. There are a limited number of world surveys of ICD practices, and most are based on information from national registers or questionnaires sent to selected hospitals or industry data. One of these surveys is a worldwide quadrennial survey of cardiac pacing and ICD practices conducted by the International Cardiac Pacing and Electrophysiology Society. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators were included in this survey in 1993 and it covered 43 countries in 2005. All countries surveyed showed a significant rise in the use of ICDs.12 The authors’ analysis based on the White Book showed that the number of implantations increased significantly from the year 2006 to 2008. Almost all countries noted an increase in ICD utilization. It is interesting that countries with a higher number of implants in the year 2006 (upper quartile) showed a higher increase in implantation from 2006 to 2008 (Figure 2). It is possible that one of the factors influencing a higher number of implantations is that countries implanting more ICD for several years have a higher replacement rate. Analysed data contain primary implants and replacements together. Higher rate of replacement in some years may be also connected with advisory of manufacturers due to problems with various parts of ICD.13 Other explanation is that, leading ICD implantation countries have a healthcare system favourable for SCD prevention. In spite of the increasing number of implantations, there are great discrepancies between the analysed countries. A high implantation rate may be provided also in countries with modest economic resources (e.g. Czech Republic).

On the basis of the White Book, in most countries (60%) physicians preferred utilization of single-chamber ICDs. The decision about selecting single- or dual-chamber ICD is a still matter of debate. The clinical advantages of dual-chamber over single-chamber ICD has not been confirmed in large clinical studies.14 Even though the results of the recently published DATAS trial15 suggest potential benefits of dual-chamber devices, the optimal approach remains unsettled. The authors did not reveal the relationship between implantation rates of dual- or single-chamber ICDs and health expenditure or GDP. It seems that the factors determining the selection of double- or single-chamber ICD are not dependent on economics. It was observed (Figure 3) that more expensive dual-chamber ICDs were implanted by countries with low GDP and health expenditure as well as by countries with high GDP and health expenditure. The specific reasons for differences in ICD implantation patterns between countries could not be explained on the basis of the analysed data.

Economic factors

The analysis demonstrated that economic status presented as the total GDP and GDP per capita directly correlated with ICD implants. Furthermore, a higher expenditure on health positively correlated with implantation rates. This observation was also confirmed by Ovsyshcher and Furman16 who also found a modest correlation between GDP per capita and annual health expenditures with the European first-time ICD implantation rates (r= 0.66, P<0.01). Besides GDP and health expenditure, the implantation rate may be influenced by other economic factors like procedural reimbursement to physicians and hospitals. Even though almost all countries have reimbursement for ICD devices (exceptions being Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, Egypt, and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia—FYROM), the forms of reimbursement are complex and heterogeneous in different countries (Table 5). Reimbursement refers to the coverage of medical costs by the public authorities (healthcare funds, regional or central government agencies). Reasonable reimbursement should be based on the basis of a cost-effectiveness data. Cost effectiveness of ICD was confirmed in many studies, especially in the US population.17,18 Cowie et al.19 presented a modelling study in which the cost effectiveness of primary prophylactic ICD implantation according to the current European guidelines was analysed in the European population. Cowie et al.19 found that under most assumptions in a European healthcare setting, the prophylactic implantation of an ICD has a cost-effectiveness ratio below 50 000 EUR per QALY (quality-adjusted life years) in patients with an increased risk of SCD due to low left ventricular ejection fraction (<35%). Although full implementation of this therapy, according to the guidelines has potentially high costs and organizational implications for European healthcare systems, this analysis however indicates that such expenditure represents good value for money.

Table 5

Examples of reimbursement schemes of cardiac devices in selected countries

Case or DRGs Hospital global budgets Positive list 
Germany Spain Belgium 
UK Italy France 
France Switzerland  
Portugal Austria  
Netherlands Denmark  
 Finland  
 Norway  
 Sweden  
Case or DRGs Hospital global budgets Positive list 
Germany Spain Belgium 
UK Italy France 
France Switzerland  
Portugal Austria  
Netherlands Denmark  
 Finland  
 Norway  
 Sweden  

The authors have no data to analyse other important economic factors such as procedural costs that include cost of the device, implantation, and hospitalization. It is particularly interesting to note how implant reimbursement costs vary significantly between countries. For example, the reimbursement costs for the single-chamber ICD implantation in Belgium are 26 211 EUR, whereas in the Netherlands this is 46 562 EUR. The latter value is thrice higher than that in Germany (13 726–16 612 EUR), depending on the calculation in the diagnosis-related groups—Diagnostic-Related Group (DRG).20 In some countries such as Poland, despite the use of the same expense calculation based on DRG, reimbursement costs are only 8500 EUR, including other costs such as device and hospitalization.

Although economic indices seem to be very important factors influencing the implantation rate, some other factors may also be of significance. There are several countries with a lower economic status but with a higher implantation rate than more wealthy countries (e.g. Czech Republic, Israel, or Slovakia). Conversely, some countries with a similar economic status have significantly different ICD implantation rates. For example, the UK has much lower implant rates than Italy or France.

The data from international ICD registries reported not only differences between various countries but also regional differences within the same country. For example, the report from the UK National Survey 2008 presents significant regional differences in the ICD implantation rates.21 Similar situations are observed in other European countries.22,23

Therefore, it is seen that besides economics, there are other factors responsible for differences in implantation rates.

Healthcare factors

The present analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between life expectancy and ICD implantation rates. There are variations in life expectancy between different countries, mostly caused by differences in public health, medical care, and access to healthcare. Improvements in healthcare and welfare increase life expectancy.24

The observation that in countries with longer life expectancy implantable devices were more frequently used suggests that in countries with well-developed healthcare access to ICD implantations is easier.

Only borderline correlation between the number of physicians per 100 000 population and the implantation rate indicates that the number of physicians is not the predominant factor in determining adherence to the guidelines. It would be of interest to calculate the correlation between the number of implanting physicians and the implantation rate. A high number of ICD implants in countries with a high density of implantation centres may favour such a hypothesis. Although most of the countries have at least one centre per million inhabitants, the relatively low number of procedures per centre is surprising. According to the ‘Core curriculum for the hearth rhythm specialist’ published on behalf of the Accreditation Committee of the European Heart Rhythm Association, the training centre should perform at least 50 ICD implantations/replacements per year.25 A mean implantation rate over 50 per centre yearly was reported in Armenia, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, and the UK. The World Survey published by Mond et al.12 revealed that countries with predominantly government-funded services, such as Denmark and the United Kingdom, generally have fewer implanting hospitals and hence higher implant numbers per centre. Interestingly enough, there is no influence of cardiac electrophysiology subspecialty on ICD implantation. Camm et al.23 suggest that more of the electrophysiologists workload is spent on ablation procedures and this effort competes with the time of the electrophysiologist and the electrophysiology laboratory that can be made available for ICD implantation. This may be another important contributor to the underutilization of ICDs in Europe. On the other hand, there are some data that physicians are not always aware of, such as the effectiveness of ICD treatment in those at risk of SCD.26 Therefore, organizations such as EHRA should educate doctors, and also nurses, physiologists, technicians, patients, caregivers, support groups, healthcare payers, healthcare managers, and government officials in terms of the improvement of the care of patients with cardiac arrhythmias.

Potential implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients

Another factor affecting ICD implantation could be the target population. In some countries, the population for ICDs consists mainly of cardiac arrest survivors (secondary prevention), while in other countries, mainly primary prevention patients receive a device. The data in national ICD registries indicate that the number of patients treated with an ICD for primary prevention is rapidly increasing. For example, in Italy, prophylactic ICD implantation was 44.2% of the total implants in 2005 and 55.7% in 2007,27 and it is noteworthy that in the USA ∼80% of ICD recipients have primary prevention implants.14,28 Information about primary vs. secondary prevention implants will be available in the next edition of the White Book. One of the factors for determining the disparities in ICD implants rate can be different adherence to guidelines. Unfortunately, in the 2008 and 2009 editions of the White Book, no data about indications for ICD implantations are provided.

Practical implications

Such data as presented in the White Book can provide the opportunity to share and exchange information from ESC member countries on specific needs for improvements, reimbursement policy, and training issues. The data can also be used for creating standards for education and training and offer assistance necessary to harmonize treatment of arrhythmias.

Limitations

The White Book contains only selective information about economies and healthcare systems. The limited data published in the EHRA White Book do not allow for a thorough analysis of all factors that could have an influence on the selection of patients for the ICD implantation. Information about indications for ICD implantations is missing. Also, the White Book did not provide information about first-time implantation and device replacement. The data represent a reasonable percentage of the actual procedures but not the absolute reality. However, it is possible to make approximation of replacements rates and indications for ICD on the basis of previous studies and according to information from manufacturers and European Confederation of Medical Devices Association (EUCOMED). In the White Book data from EUCOMED were only used if the national chairman authorized the correctness of data for his country and only served as an additional source.

Conclusions

  1. There are great differences in the ICD-implanting rates between EHRA member countries.

  2. The number of ICD implantations is increasing in almost all countries.

  3. There are discrepancies in the number of implanting centres per million inhabitants between countries. The number of centres correlate with implantation rates.

  4. The factors affecting the number of ICD implantations are national economic status and healthcare expenses.

Conflict of interest: none declared.

Funding

The EHRA White Book project was made possible by an unrestricted educational grant from BIOTRONIK SE & Co. KG, Germany.

References

1
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
State-specific mortality from sudden cardiac death-United States, 1999
Morb Mortal Wkly Rep (MMWR)
 , 
2002
, vol. 
51
 (pg. 
123
-
6
)
2
American Heart Association
2002 Heart and Stroke Statistical
 , 
2001
Dallas, TX
Amercian Heart Association
3
Buxton
AE
Lee
KL
Fisher
JD
Josephson
ME
Prystowsky
EN
Hafley
G
A randomized study of the prevention of sudden death in patients with coronary artery disease. Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial Investigators
N Engl J Med
 , 
1999
, vol. 
341
 (pg. 
1882
-
90
)
4
Kuck
KH
Cappato
R
Siebels
J
Ruppel
R
Randomized comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest: the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH)
Circulation
 , 
2000
, vol. 
102
 (pg. 
748
-
54
)
5
Moss
AJ
Zareba
W
Hall
WJ
Klein
H
Wilber
DJ
Cannom
DS
, et al.  . 
Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction
N Engl J Med
 , 
2002
, vol. 
346
 (pg. 
877
-
83
)
6
Kadish
A
Dyer
A
Daubert
JP
Quigg
R
Estes
NA
Anderson
KP
, et al.  . 
Prophylactic defibrillator implantation in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy
N Engl J Med
 , 
2004
, vol. 
350
 (pg. 
2151
-
8
)
7
Connolly
SJ
Hallstrom
AP
Cappato
R
Schron
EB
Kuck
KH
Zipes
DP
, et al.  . 
Meta-analysis of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator secondary prevention trials. AVID, CASH and CIDS studies. Antiarrhythmics vs Implantable Defibrillator study. Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg. Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study
Eur Heart J
 , 
2000
, vol. 
21
 (pg. 
2071
-
8
)
8
Zipes
DP
Camm
AJ
Borggrefe
M
Buxton
AE
Chaitman
B
Fromer
M
, et al.  . 
ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (writing committee to develop guidelines for management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death): developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society
Circulation
 , 
2006
, vol. 
114
 (pg. 
e385
-
484
)
11
Merkely
B
Roka
A
Kutyifa
V
Boersma
L
Leenhardt
A
Lubinski
A
, et al.  . 
Tracing the European course of cardiac resynchronization therapy from 2006 to 2008
Europace
 , 
2010
, vol. 
12
 (pg. 
692
-
701
)
12
Mond
HG
Irwin
M
Ector
H
Proclemer
A
The world survey of cardiac pacing and cardioverter-defibrillators: calendar year 2005 an International Cardiac Pacing and Electrophysiology Society (ICPES) project
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
 , 
2008
, vol. 
31
 (pg. 
1202
-
12
)
13
Maisel
WH
Pacemaker and ICD generator reliability: meta-analysis of device registries
JAMA
 , 
2006
, vol. 
295
 (pg. 
1929
-
34
)
14
Brown
DW
Croft
JB
Greenlund
KJ
Mensah
GA
Giles
WH
Trends in hospitalization for the implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators in the United States, 1990–2005
Am J Cardiol
 , 
2008
, vol. 
101
 (pg. 
1753
-
5
)
15
Almendral
J
Arribas
F
Wolpert
C
Ricci
R
Adragao
P
Cobo
E
, et al.  . 
Dual-chamber defibrillators reduce clinically significant adverse events compared with single-chamber devices: results from the DATAS (Dual chamber and Atrial Tachyarrhythmias Adverse events Study) trial
Europace
 , 
2008
, vol. 
10
 (pg. 
528
-
35
)
16
Ovsyshcher
IE
Furman
S
Determinants of geographic variations in pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators implantation rates
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
 , 
2003
, vol. 
26
 (pg. 
474
-
8
)
17
Mark
DB
Nelson
CL
Anstrom
KJ
Al Khatib
SM
Tsiatis
AA
Cowper
PA
, et al.  . 
Cost-effectiveness of defibrillator therapy or amiodarone in chronic stable heart failure: results from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT)
Circulation
 , 
2006
, vol. 
114
 (pg. 
135
-
42
)
18
Sanders
GD
Hlatky
MA
Owens
DK
Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators
N Engl J Med
 , 
2005
, vol. 
353
 (pg. 
1471
-
80
)
19
Cowie
MR
Marshall
D
Drummond
M
Ferko
N
Maschio
M
Ekman
M
, et al.  . 
Lifetime cost-effectiveness of prophylactic implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator in patients with reduced left ventricular systolic function: results of Markov modelling in a European population
Europace
 , 
2009
, vol. 
11
 (pg. 
716
-
26
)
20
Meine
M
Smith
T
Hauer
RN
The economical challenge in the treatment of chronic heart failure: is primary prophylactic ICD therapy cost-effective in Europe?
Europace
 , 
2009
, vol. 
11
 (pg. 
689
-
91
)
21
2009
 
Heart Rhythm Devices: UK National Survey 2007 http://www.ccad.org.uk/device.nsf
22
Danish Pacemaker and ICD Register
2009
 
23
Camm
JA
Nisam
S
European utilization of the implantable defibrillator: has 10 years changed the ‘enigma’?
Europace
 , 
2010
, vol. 
12
 (pg. 
1063
-
9
)
24
Sullivan
A
Sheffrin
SM
Economics: Principles in action
 , 
2003
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey
Pearson Prentice Hall
25
Merino
JL
Arribas
F
Botto
GL
Huikuri
H
Kraemer
LI
Linde
C
, et al.  . 
Core curriculum for the heart rhythm specialist
Europace
 , 
2009
, vol. 
11
 
Suppl. 3
(pg. 
iii1
-
26
)
26
EUCOMED
 
. Awareness of Device Therapy Survey, Brussels, December 2006
27
Proclemer
A
Ghidina
M
Gregori
D
Facchin
D
Rebellato
L
Fioretti
P
, et al.  . 
Impact of the main implantable cardioverter-defibrillator trials in clinical practice: data from the Italian ICD Registry for the years 2005–07
Europace
 , 
2009
, vol. 
11
 (pg. 
465
-
75
)
28
Greenberg
SM
Epstein
AE
Deering
T
Goldman
DS
Ghidina
M
Neason
C
, et al.  . 
A Comparison of ICD implantations in the United States versus Italy
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
 , 
2007
, vol. 
30
 
Suppl. 1
(pg. 
S143
-
6
)