Single- Versus Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death in the United States.

Background Routine addition of an atrial lead during an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, in patients without pacing indications, was not shown beneficial in contemporary studies. We aimed to investigate the use and safety of single- versus dual-chamber ICD implantations in these patients. Methods and Results Using the National Inpatient Sample database, we identified patients with no pacing indications who underwent primary-prevention ICD implantation in the United States between 2015 and 2019. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, as well as in-hospital complications, were analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of in-hospital complications. An estimated total of 15 940 patients, underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death during the study period, 8860 (55.6%) received a dual-chamber ICD. The mean age was 64 years, and 66% were men. In-hospital complication rates in the dual-chamber ICD and single-chamber ICD group were 12.8% and 10.7%, respectively (