Comparison of Inappropriate Shocks and Other Health Outcomes Between Single- and Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Results From the Cardiovascular Research Network Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators.

BACKGROUND: In US clinical practice, many patients who undergo placement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death receive dual-chamber devices. The superiority of dual-chamber over single-chamber devices in reducing the risk of inappropriate ICD shocks in clinical practice has not been established. The objective of this study was to compare risk of adverse outcomes, including inappropriate shocks, between single- and dual-chamber ICDs for primary prevention. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified patients receiving a single- or dual-chamber ICD for primary prevention who did not have an indication for pacing from 15 hospitals within 7 integrated health delivery systems in the Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators from 2006 to 2009. The primary outcome was time to first inappropriate shock. ICD shocks were adjudicated for appropriateness. Other outcomes included all-cause hospitalization, heart failure hospitalization, and death. Patient, clinician, and hospital-level factors were accounted for using propensity score weighting methods. Among 1042 patients without pacing indications, 54.0% (n=563) received a single-chamber device and 46.0% (n=479) received a dual-chamber device. In a propensity-weighted analysis, device type was not significantly associated with inappropriate shock (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.38 [P=0.65]), all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.21 [P=0.76]), heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.21 [P=0.59]), or death (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.53 [P=0.17]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who received an ICD for primary prevention without indications for pacing, dual-chamber devices were not associated with lower risk of inappropriate shock or differences in hospitalization or death compared with single-chamber devices. This study does not justify the use of dual-chamber devices to minimize inappropriate shocks.

Potential medication dosing errors in outpatient pediatrics.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of potential dosing errors of medication dispensed to children for 22 common medications. STUDY DESIGN: Using automated pharmacy data from 3 health maintenance organizations (HMOs), we randomly selected up to 120 children with a new dispensing prescription for each drug of interest, giving 1933 study subjects. Errors were defined as potential overdoses or potential underdoses. Error rate in 2 HMOs that use paper prescriptions was compared with 1 HMO that uses an electronic prescription writer. RESULTS: Approximately 15% of children were dispensed a medication with a potential dosing error: 8% were potential overdoses and 7% were potential underdoses. Among children weighing <35 kg, only 67% of doses were dispensed within recommended dosing ranges, and more than 1% were dispensed at more than twice the recommended maximum dose. Analgesics were most likely to be potentially overdosed (15%), whereas antiepileptics were most likely potentially underdosed (20%). Potential error rates were not lower at the site with an electronic prescription writer. CONCLUSIONS: Potential medication dosing errors occur frequently in outpatient pediatrics. Studies on the clinical impact of these potential errors and effective error prevention strategies are needed.