1. Volume 9, Issue 6, Pages 874-881 (June 2012)
Referring physicians' discordance with the primary prevention implantable cardioverter- defibrillator guidelines: A national survey 
Jorge M. Castellanos, MD, MPP, Lisa M. Smith, MPH, Paul D. Varosy, MD, FHRS, Christine Dehlendorf, MD, MAS, Gregory M. Marcus, MD, MAS, FHRS 
Heart Rhythm 
Volume 9, Issue 6, Pages (June 2012)
DOI: /j.hrthm
Copyright © 2012 Heart Rhythm Society Terms and Conditions

2. Figure 1
Multivariate analysis of the characteristics of physicians who referred their patients for the consideration of a primary prevention ICD. All predictors associated with this response with P <.01 in bivariate analyses are included. P values are shown for statistically significant results. Y error bars denote 95% confidence intervals. The dashed line denotes an odds ratio of 1. *Reference is internal medicine and family medicine physicians grouped together. †Reference is the western United States. ‡Analyzed as a continuous variable; the odds ratio is increased odds per percentage of patients older than 60 years.
Heart Rhythm 2012 9, DOI: ( /j.hrthm )
Copyright © 2012 Heart Rhythm Society Terms and Conditions

3. Figure 2
Proportion of primary care physicians (general internal medicine and family medicine physicians) with guideline-discordant answers who did and did not manage heart failure patients independently. For those who managed patients with a reduced LVEF, 40% of the total patients were used because this cutoff represented the upper interquartile range for that answer. LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; MI = myocardial infarction.
Heart Rhythm 2012 9, DOI: ( /j.hrthm )
Copyright © 2012 Heart Rhythm Society Terms and Conditions

4. Figure 3
Summary statistics of Likert scales regarding concerns when deciding against referring a patient for an ICD. *Concern that the respondent would lose the patient to another physician.
Heart Rhythm 2012 9, DOI: ( /j.hrthm )
Copyright © 2012 Heart Rhythm Society Terms and Conditions