Clinical UM Guideline |
Subject: Automated External Defibrillators for Home Use | |
Guideline #: CG-DME-55 | Publish Date: 10/01/2024 |
Status: Reviewed | Last Review Date: 08/08/2024 |
Description |
This document addresses automated external defibrillators (AEDs) for home use to prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD) as a result of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA). An AED is a portable machine that uses an algorithm to distinguish shockable rhythms (ventricular fibrillation [VF] and ventricular tachycardia) from non-shockable cardiac rhythms (pulseless electrical activity and asystole), advises the rescuer that a shockable rhythm is present, and then allows for the delivery of the appropriate amplitude shock to “restart” the individual’s normal heart rhythm. Typically, an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is placed when needed for prevention of SCD in high-risk individuals. Preventive options other than an implanted defibrillating device include AEDs and external wearable cardioverter defibrillators. This document does not address the medical necessity of wearable or implantable cardioverter defibrillators.
Note: Please see the following related documents for additional information:
Clinical Indications |
Medically Necessary:
An automated external defibrillator (AED) for home use is considered medically necessary for an individual who meets the following criteria (A, B and C):
*Refer to applicable implantable cardioverter defibrillator guidelines used by the plan
**Refer to TRANS.00033 Heart Transplantation
Not Medically Necessary:
AEDs for home use are considered not medically necessary when the criteria above are not met.
AEDs for home use are considered not medically necessary when the individual has a wearable cardioverter defibrillator.
Coding |
The following codes for treatments and procedures applicable to this guideline are included below for informational purposes. Inclusion or exclusion of a procedure, diagnosis or device code(s) does not constitute or imply member coverage or provider reimbursement policy. Please refer to the member’s contract benefits in effect at the time of service to determine coverage or non-coverage of these services as it applies to an individual member.
When services may be Medically Necessary when criteria are met:
HCPCS |
|
E0617 | External defibrillator with integrated electrocardiogram analysis |
|
|
ICD-10 Diagnosis |
|
D86.85 | Sarcoid myocarditis |
I21.01-I21.B | Acute myocardial infarction |
I22.0-I22.9 | Subsequent ST elevation (STEMI) and non-ST elevation (NSTEMI) myocardial infarction |
I24.0-I24.9 | Other acute ischemic heart disease |
I25.10-I25.119 | Atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery |
I25.2 | Old myocardial infarction |
I25.5 | Ischemic cardiomyopathy |
I25.810-I25.9 | Other forms of chronic ischemic heart disease |
I42.0-I42.9 | Cardiomyopathy |
I45.81 | Long QT syndrome |
I46.2-I46.9 | Cardiac arrest |
I47.0 | Re-entry ventricular arrhythmia |
I47.20-I47.29 | Ventricular tachycardia |
I49.01-I49.02 | Ventricular fibrillation, ventricular flutter |
Q24.8 | Other specified congenital malformations of heart [Brugada syndrome] |
Q24.9 | Congenital malformation of heart, unspecified (congenital disease of heart) |
R55 | Syncope and collapse |
T82.110A-T82.199S | Mechanical complication, displacement or other complication of cardiac electronic device |
T82.6XXA-T82.7XXS | Infection and inflammatory reaction due to cardiac valve prosthesis, other cardiac and vascular devices, implants and grafts |
Z82.41 | Family history of sudden cardiac death |
Z86.74 | Personal history of sudden cardiac arrest |
When services are Not Medically Necessary:
For the procedure code listed above when criteria are not met or for all other diagnoses not listed, or for situations designated in the Clinical Indications section as not medically necessary.
Discussion/General Information |
Sudden Cardiac Arrest
Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) is estimated to occur in over 356,000 people every year and account for approximately 250,000 deaths annually (60-80% die prior to reaching a hospital); 3-5% of deaths are in children ages 5-19 years (approximately 40% of SCA in children are sports-related) (American Heart Association [AHA], 2022; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2023).
The four diagnoses most commonly associated with SCA in children, adolescents and young adults include hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, long QT syndrome, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, and anomalous origin of the left coronary artery from the right sinus of Valsalva; while these are the most common diagnoses it is not an all-inclusive list of risk factors (Dalal, 2016). Similarly, the four leading causes of SCA irrespective of age are cardiomyopathy, coronary artery disease, valvular heart disease, and arrhythmias. Demographically, the highest risk population groups for SCA are older adults and men; Black men and women are more likely to die from out-of-hospital SCA than other races (CDC, 2023).
Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD)
Typically, an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is placed when needed for prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in high-risk individuals. Preventive options other than an implanted defibrillating device include automated external defibrillators (AEDs) and external wearable cardioverter defibrillators.
An AED is a portable machine that is designed to use in the event of SCA to prevent SCD by employing an algorithm to distinguish shockable arrhythmias from other cardiac rhythms not amenable to defibrillation. An AED advises the rescuer when a shockable rhythm is present and prompts the delivery of the appropriate amplitude shock to attempt restoration of normal sinus heart rhythm. AEDs can be safely and effectively used by lay rescuers and first responders. The prompt initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), recognition of a shockable arrhythmia, subsequent defibrillation and hospital transfer are the most important factors in survival from SCA. Approximately 80 percent of people who sustain an SCA are at home when it occurs (Erickson, 2021).
As mentioned, when an SCA occurs, prevention of SCD requires fast action. The AHA and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), along with other authoritative medical societies, have delineated consensus recommendations for the ‘chain-of-survival’ which includes immediate activation of emergency services (call 911), initiating bystander CPR, early defibrillation and ultimately advanced hospital care. Survival rates are extremely low and decrease by 10% each minute CPR and defibrillation (when indicated) are not administered (AAP, 2012; Erickson, 2021). It is estimated that nearly 60-80% of out-of-hospital SCA’s occur in a residential setting where the survival rate is less than half that of public spaces (Elhussain, 2023; Erickson, 2021).
Available literature indicates that defibrillation is recommended for the secondary prevention of SCD, due to ventricular fibrillation (VF) or ventricular tachycardia (VT) and as primary prevention for some indications. Typical examples of primacy SCD prevention strategies include reduction of blood lipids, cessation of smoking, and sufficient treatment of diabetes and arterial hypertension, but some risk factors for SCD are not due to underlying modifiable factors. ICD implantation is the generally accepted preventable treatment option for those who have experienced an episode of VF not accompanied by an acute myocardial infarction (MI) or other transient or reversible cause. Accepted guidelines prefer this treatment in individuals with sustained VT, causing syncope or hemodynamic compromise. As primary prevention, the literature shows that ICD use is superior to conventional antiarrhythmic drug therapy for those who have survived an MI and who have spontaneous, non-sustained VT (NSVT), a low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and inducible VT at electrophysiological study (EPS).
In 2009, the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/AHA published a focused update to the 2005 guidelines for the diagnosis and management of heart failure (HF) in adults (Hunt, 2009). The timeframe considered by consensus as adequate to determine if guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT) has been effective prior to ICD placement is 3 to 6 months. In 2013, a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), AHA, American Society of Echocardiography (ASE), Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT), and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) was issued, in which the following is noted regarding the timeframe for GDMT:
Patients who are going to receive substantial benefit from medical treatment alone usually show some clinical improvement during the first 3 to 6 months. Medical therapy is also assumed to include adequate rate control for tachyarrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation. Therefore, it is recommended that GDMT be provided for at least 3 months before planned reassessment of LV function to consider device implantation. If LV function improves to the point where primary prevention indications no longer apply, then device implantation is not indicated (Russo, 2013).
During this period of optimization of GDMT and ICD, and therefore an AED, is not routinely indicated.
Efficacy of AEDs for Home Use
Clinical studies suggest that AED use in public locations, such as airports and casinos, improves survival from SCA. The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) trial, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), was a multicenter study in which community-based AED training was employed in “high-risk” settings, that included 1260 community sites and residential locations with more than 250 persons older than age 50 years on site for most of the day, or sites where a cardiac arrest had occurred within the 2 years prior to the study. Sites were randomized to rescuers trained in CPR alone or those trained in CPR and defibrillator use. Approximately 20,000 lay volunteers were trained, representing almost 10 volunteers per available defibrillator. The primary endpoint of the study was the number of subjects who survived to hospital discharge. More cardiac arrests occurred in the CPR-defibrillator locations (n=129) than in the CPR-alone locations (n=103). A total of 29 individuals in the CPR-defibrillator group survived to hospital discharge (22.5%), compared with only 15 in the CPR alone group (14.6%) (p=0.042). Notably, there was only 1 survival to hospital discharge in each group when SCA occurred in a residential unit. Investigators drew the following conclusions from the study results:
Primary studies and systematic reviews have continued to provide evidentiary support that the chance of survival following out-of-hospital SCA increases 50-74% when immediate defibrillation is employed in public places (Baekgaard, 2017; Gantzel Nielsen, 2021; Griffis, 2020; Kiyohara, 2019; Pollack, 2018). However, as previously reported, most SCA’s occur in private residences, where the survival rate (23%) is less than half that of public locations (52%) (Elhussain, 2023)
An important Issue not addressed In the PAD study was whether or not AED use in the home setting improves health outcomes and survival beyond that achieved with the standard emergency response (EMS call, in addition to CPR). The Home Use of Automatic External Defibrillators to Treat Sudden Cardiac Arrest Trial (HAT), sponsored by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), enrolled an estimated 7000 individuals who were randomized, following anterior MI. The study arms were well balanced regarding demographics and comorbidities. Individual’s enrolled were in stable condition and had a previous anterior-wall Q-wave or non-Q-wave MI were enrolled because these are the most common diagnoses contributing to SCA. Candidates for ICD were excluded from the study. Participants were randomized to either a group that received standard lay response to SCA (call EMS and begin CPR) or to a group that received home AED and the standard response. The interventional arm was instructed to call emergency services and begin CPR only after placing the AED in contrast to the control arm which was instructed to call emergency services prior to beginning CPR [this order of instruction for incorporation of and AED in SCA rescue does not reflect current guideline recommendations – calling EMS is always the first step]. The study’s primary endpoint was all-cause mortality in the two arms of the trial with secondary endpoints of survival free from post-arrest neurological impairment and diminished quality of life (QOL) for affected individuals and spouses. This Phase III trial enrolled participants for more than 2 years and followed them for an additional 2 years at 200 cardiology clinics. The median age at the time of enrollment was 62 years. An AED was applied to 32 participants during the trial period, of those 13 had an advisable shock and 12 were delivered; 4 survived the first 48 hours following the event. Results of this study were published in 2008 and concluded that for survivors of anterior-wall MI who were not candidates for implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator, access to a home AED did not significantly improve overall survival, as compared with reliance on conventional resuscitation methods. Ultimately, the number of participants who received an advisable shock (0.3% of the AED arm) was extremely low (Bardy, 2008; Mark, 2010).
In 2013, Jorgenson and colleagues published results of a prospective, observational, post-market study voluntarily initiated by the manufacturer (HeartStart HomeAED). Surveillance methods which supplied data included annual surveys, follow-up phone calls, media reports, and inquiries prompted by orders for replacement pads. Home AED owners who reported emergency use of their device were contacted for an in-depth interview; electrocardiogram and event data from their device's internal memory were included in the study. A total of 25 individuals were identified in which an AED was used following a SCA; 2 uses were in children (4.5 months and 5 years). The majority of uses occurred in the home (n=18; 72%) and the device was most often activated by a family member (n=14; 56%), the majority (n=17, 68%) being laypersons. The cardiac event (SCA) was witnessed in 76% (19/25) of the cases. A total of 14 individuals (56%) presented in VF and at least one shock was delivered; 14 achieved termination of VF; 6 (43%) required more than one shock due to refibrillation (range:1-5 shocks). A total of 8 out of 12 (67%) study participants with a witnessed SCA survived to hospital discharge; none of the unwitnessed arrests survived to hospital discharge. Both children in the study who received shocks survived to hospital discharge. There were no reported adverse events caused by improper use of the home AED. This manufacturer-sponsored study demonstrates that use of an AED may contribute to enhanced likelihood of survival following SCA in the home.
In 2017, McLeod and colleagues published results of a retrospective analysis including 36 families with 44 children ages 1 day to 15 years (mean age 8.8 years), at increased risk of SCA. Families that were issued an AED for home use along with resuscitation training over the 11-year study period were enrolled. At the time of device issuance, the children’s diagnoses included long QT syndrome (50%), broad complex tachycardia (14%), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (11%), and catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (9%). Follow-up data was available for 1 to 11.5 years (mean of 6.2 years). Of the 44 children enrolled in the analysis, 35 (79%) had been prescribed an AED by their pediatrician, 6 of the 35 were awaiting ICD placement. The remaining 9 (20%) children received AEDs at parental request only. During the study period 3 children experienced an SCA and the AED device was used in 4 (9%) children, correctly distinguishing between shockable and non-shockable rhythms. Out of the 3 children that appropriately received electric shocks for ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia, 2 survived, while 1 died as a result of recurrent torsades de pointes. The study authors concluded:
Parents can be taught to recognize cardiac arrest, apply resuscitation skills, and use an automated external defibrillator. Prescribing an automated external defibrillator should be considered for children at increased risk of sudden arrhythmic death, especially where the risk/benefit ratio of an implantable defibrillator is unclear or delay to defibrillator implantation is deemed necessary.
In 2022, Atkins and colleagues published a systematic review conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of AEDs in treating out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) that have occurred in children between the ages of 0-18. As a control, the study also included pediatric OHCAs in which an AED was not applied. The review demonstrated that for children ages 1-18, the application of an AED by a layperson significantly improved survival rates with significantly improved neurological outcomes at hospital discharge or 30 days (Relative Risk [RR]= 3.84 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.69–5.5] and RR=3.75, [95% CI, 2.97–4.72], respectively), and better survival rates to hospital discharge (RR=3.04 [95% CI, 2.18–4.25], RR=3.38 [95% CI, 2.17–4.16]), respectively). Study authors concluded that the use of AEDs by lay rescuers showed a significant association with improved survival and neurological outcomes at 30 days post-event and improved survival rates till hospital discharge in children aged 1-18 years. Data for AED application in children under 1 year of age was too limited to draw meaningful conclusions.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the HeartStart Home OTC Defibrillator (Philips Medical Systems, Seattle, WA) for home use through the 510(k) approval process on September 16, 2004. The FDA cleared indication for use is, “For the termination of ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia. These devices are intended to be used on suspected victims of sudden cardiac arrest” (FDA, 2004). The previous version of this device required a prescription. However, this device is available without a prescription. On June 06, 2019, HeartStart Home OTC Defibrillator received FDA Premarket Approval (PMA) (FDA, 2019). There are additional devices for home use that have also been cleared by the FDA, (for example, the HeartSine Samaritan® PAD [HeartSine Technologies, Inc., San Clemente, CA]). On January 25, 2010 the Circulatory System Devices Panel of the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) issued a recommendation that, “AEDs be classified as Class III medical devices and be subject to the regulations in accordance with [PMA] applications.” According to the FDA, AED devices, although historically classified as Class III devices, have not been subject to the requirement of submitting a PMA application to demonstrate affirmatively a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Instead, they have been allowed to enter the market following FDA clearance of a 510(k) submission, usually reserved for lower-risk devices. On February 3, 2015 the FDA issued a Final Order which now requires all AED devices to meet PMA protocols; AED manufacturers must now submit PMA applications for FDA approval for all previously cleared AED devices. In addition, this new order requires that all new AED devices and accessories have an approved PMA in effect before being placed in commercial distribution (FDA, 2015). This order is based on the reports of 45,000 adverse events and 88 recalls received by the FDA between 2005 and 2013, many due to battery failure and improper maintenance. The FDA maintains an updated list of approved AEDs on their website (FDA, 2023).
While the evidence basis regarding the efficacy of AED use, specifically in the home, remains to be definitely established in the peer-reviewed literature, in the event that an individual is a candidate for an ICD, but unable to receive one because they are awaiting heart transplantation, had to have the device temporarily removed or has a temporary condition preventing placement, access to an FDA approved home AED device is a clinically appropriate alternative to increase the chances of survival should an SCA event occur. In addition, since the individual cannot self-administer the AED, another individual who can operate the AED should be generally available should use be required.
Definitions |
Defibrillation: A process in which an electronic device (a defibrillator) gives the heart an electric shock, helping to re-establish normal contraction rhythms in a heart that is not properly beating. This may be done using an external device or by a device implanted in the body.
Myocardial Infarction (MI): This is the medical term for “heart attack.” A MI occurs when the blood supply to part of the heart muscle (the myocardium) is severely reduced or blocked (stenosed).
Sudden Cardiac Arrest (SCA): Refers to a sudden cessation of cardiac activity such that the victim becomes unresponsive with no normal breathing and no signs of circulation. If corrective measures are not taken rapidly, this condition progresses to SCD.
Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD also called sudden death): Death resulting from an abrupt loss of heart function (cardiac arrest).
References |
Peer Reviewed Publications:
Government Agency, Medical Society, and Other Authoritative Publications:
Websites for Additional Information |
Index |
AED
Automatic external defibrillator
Avive Solutions
Cardiac Science
Defibtech
HeartSine Samaritan
Philips Medical
Physio-Control
ZOLL Medical
The use of specific product names is illustrative only. It is not intended to be a recommendation of one product over another, and is not intended to represent a complete listing of all products available.
History |
Status | Date | Action |
Reviewed | 08/08/2024 | Medical Policy & Technology Assessment Committee (MPTAC) review. Revised Discussion/General Information and References sections. |
New | 05/30/2024 | MPTAC review. Initial document development. Moved content of DME.00032 Automated External Defibrillators for Home Use to new clinical utilization management guideline document with the same title. Added MN criteria for home use of AEDs. |
Federal and State law, as well as contract language, and Medical Policy take precedence over Clinical UM Guidelines. We reserve the right to review and update Clinical UM Guidelines periodically. Clinical guidelines approved by the Medical Policy & Technology Assessment Committee are available for general adoption by plans or lines of business for consistent review of the medical necessity of services related to the clinical guideline when the plan performs utilization review for the subject. Due to variances in utilization patterns, each plan may choose whether to adopt a particular Clinical UM Guideline. To determine if review is required for this Clinical UM Guideline, please contact the customer service number on the member's card.
Alternatively, commercial or FEP plans or lines of business which determine there is not a need to adopt the guideline to review services generally across all providers delivering services to Plan’s or line of business’s members may instead use the clinical guideline for provider education and/or to review the medical necessity of services for any provider who has been notified that his/her/its claims will be reviewed for medical necessity due to billing practices or claims that are not consistent with other providers, in terms of frequency or in some other manner.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without permission from the health plan.
© CPT Only - American Medical Association