Back to Authors

Osman, Mohammed Najeeb

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3205-6733

Mayo Clinic

University Hospitals of Cleveland

Citations 2

Cardiac Resynchronization With or Without Defibrillator in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy: A Nationwide Cohort Study (DECIDE-CRT)
Selvaganesan, Padmini , Karnib, Mohamad , Helmy, Irfan , Rashid, Imran, Osman, Mohammed Najeeb , Amuthan, Ram , Vest, Amanda R. , Intini, Anselma, Fang, James C. , Sahadevan, Jayakumar, Sundaram, Varun , Nishimura, Rick , Osman, Mohammed N , Amuthan, Ram , Vest, Amanda R , Intini, Anselma , Fang, James C , Cleland, John G F , Sahadevan, Jayakumar , Zakeri, Rosita , Sundaram, Varun , Reddy, Yogesh N.V. , Cleland, John G.F. , Zakeri, Rosita

Circulation: Heart Failure | August 7, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1161/circheartfailure.126.014213 Get It

BACKGROUND: With evolving therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the benefits of adding a defibrillator in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) remain unclear, particularly for nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM). This study evaluates long-term survival among patients with NICM treated with CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) versus CRT pacemaker (CRT-P). METHODS: DECIDE-CRT (Cardiac Resynchronization With or Without Defibrillator in Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy) is a multicenter cohort study across 170 US Veterans Affairs hospitals. We identified patients with NICM receiving primary-prevention CRT-P or CRT-D between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2020. Using a propensity score approach, we applied inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance baseline characteristics between the CRT-P and CRT-D groups. An inverse probability of treatment weighting–weighted Cox model estimated hazards for all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included generator replacement, device-related infections, hospitalization for heart failure, and ventricular arrhythmias. RESULTS: Of 16 609 CRT recipients, 3965 met NICM primary-prevention criteria (CRT-D=3158; CRT- P =807). At baseline, patients with NICM receiving CRT-P were much older, with more cardiovascular and noncardiovascular comorbidities compared with the CRT-D group. During the median follow-up of 5.2 years, the mortality rate for CRT-P versus CRT-D was 9.46 versus 9.21 per 100 person-years (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.71–1.13]; P =0.66). The adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality using the inverse probability of treatment weighting-Cox model was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.71–1.13; P =0.34). There was no difference in adjusted hazard for heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.86–1.87]), while the CRT-D group had higher rates of generator replacement and device-related infections. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide observational study from the Veterans Affairs Health system did not demonstrate a clear survival advantage with the addition of a defibrillator among patients with NICM receiving CRT although residual confounding cannot be excluded. Given the uncertainty surrounding the incremental benefit of the defibrillator in this setting, a randomized trial is needed to test the incremental value of CRT-D over CRT-P in NICM.
Revascularization in ischaemic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a nationwide cohort study
Deo, Salil V. , Reddy, Yogesh N.V. , Zakeri, Rosita , Selvaganesan, Padmini , Elgudin, Yakov , Rubelowsky, Joseph, Osman, Mohammed Najeeb , Josephson, Richard , Mohan, Sri Krishna Madan, Cmolik, Brian, Simon, Daniel I. , Rajagopalan, Sanjay , Sahadevan, Jayakumar, Sundaram, Varun , Nishimura, Rick , Deo, Salil , Karnib, Mohamad , Kılıç, Ahmet , Altarabsheh, Salah E. , Cleland, John G.F. , Zakeri, Rosita

European Journal of Heart Failure | February 4, 2022 | Volume: 24 | Issue: 8 | Pages: 1427-1438

10.1002/ejhf.2446 Get It

Aims Despite the common occurrence of coronary artery disease (CAD) and heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), there is limited evidence to guide revascularization. Methods and Results We investigated the long‐term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with HF and significant CAD across the spectrum of ejection fraction, using a large national cohort of patients from the Veteran Affairs (VA) Medical Centers in the US. Patients with HF were stratified into groups, HFpEF, HF with mid‐range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and compared to patients with no preoperative HF. We analysed 10 396 patients. Despite an increased hazard in the first year following revascularization, the long‐term survival (median follow‐up 6.6 years; interquartile range 3.7–10.1) of HFpEF post‐CABG was similar to controls (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.68‐1.06), but survival progressively declined with HFmrEF and HFrEF. Similar trends were seen with recurrent HF hospitalization with lower risk with baseline HFpEF (43.9 ± 6.9/100 patient‐years) compared to HFmrEF (65.9 ± 3.8/100 patient‐years) and HFrEF (93.4 ± 4.8/100 patient‐years). Although HFpEF patients had lower mortality and HF hospitalization post‐CABG compared to patients with a lower ejection fraction, they experienced the highest rates of future myocardial infarction. Conclusion Although HFpEF patients with CAD have greater short‐term risk post‐CABG, their long‐term survival is comparable to controls. However, they are at increased risk for HF hospitalizations and myocardial infarction. These data support the safety of CABG in HFpEF patients and suggest continuum of mortality risk for ischaemic HF when stratified by baseline ejection fraction before revascularization.