Al-Khatib, Sana M

Advances in the field of defibrillation have brought to practice different types of devices that include the transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with or without cardiac resynchronization therapy, the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), and the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator. To ensure optimal use of these devices and to achieve best patient outcomes, clinicians need to understand how these devices work, learn the characteristics of patients who qualify them for one type of device versus another, and recognize the remaining gaps in knowledge surrounding these devices. The transvenous ICD has been shown in several randomized clinical trials to improve the survival of patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular fibrillation and those with sustained ventricular tachycardia with syncope or systolic heart failure as a result of ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy despite receiving guideline-directed medical therapy. Important gaps in knowledge regarding the transvenous ICD involve the role of the ICD in patient subgroups not included, or not well represented, in clinical trials and the need to refine the selection criteria for the ICD in patients who are indicated for it. S-ICDs were recently introduced into the clinical arena as another option for many patients who have an approved indication for a transvenous ICD. The main advantage of the S-ICD is a lower risk of infection and lead-related complications; however, the S-ICD does not offer bradycardia or antitachycardia pacing. The S-ICD may be ideal for patients with limited vascular access, high infection risk, or some congenital heart diseases. However, more data are needed regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of the S-ICD in comparison to transvenous ICDs, the extent of defibrillation testing required, and the use of the S-ICD with other novel technologies, including leadless pacemakers. Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators are indicated in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, QRS width ≥130 ms, and New York Heart Association class II, III, or ambulatory IV symptoms despite treatment with guideline-directed medical therapy. Multiple randomized controlled trials have shown that the cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator improves survival, quality of life, and several echocardiographic measures. One main challenge related to cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators is the 30% nonresponse rate. Many initiatives are underway to address this challenge including improved cardiac resynchronization therapy and imaging technologies and enhanced selection of patients and device programming.

Background— Clinical trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention enrolled a limited number of women. We sought to examine clinical practice data to compare survival rates among women with heart failure with or without a primary prevention ICD. Methods and Results— We linked data from 264 US hospitals included in the Get With The Guidelines for Heart Failure registry with data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. From these sources, we propensity score matched 430 women with heart failure who received a primary prevention ICD to 430 women who did not; we further adjusted using a Cox proportional hazards model. Median follow-up was 3.4 and 3.0 years. For comparison, we matched 859 men receiving an ICD with 859 who did not; median follow-up was 3.9 versus 2.9 years. In the matched cohorts, an ICD was associated with similarly better survival in women (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.66–0.92; P =0.003) and men (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.67–0.87 P <0.001). There was no interaction between sex and presence of an ICD with respect to survival ( P =0.79). Conclusions— Among patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, a primary prevention ICD was associated with a significant survival advantage among women and among men. These findings support guideline-directed use of primary prevention ICDs in eligible patients.

Background— Racial and ethnic minorities are under-represented in clinical trials of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). This analysis investigates the association between primary prevention ICDs and mortality among Medicare, racial/ethnic minority patients. Methods and Results— Data from Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry and National Cardiovascular Data Registry’s ICD Registry were used to perform an adjusted comparative effectiveness analysis of primary prevention ICDs in Medicare, racial/ethnic minority patients (nonwhite race or Hispanic ethnicity). Mortality data were obtained from the Medicare denominator file. The relationship of ICD with survival was compared between minority and white non-Hispanic patients. Our analysis included 852 minority patients, 426 ICD and 426 matched non-ICD patients, and 2070 white non-Hispanic patients (1035 ICD and 1035 matched non-ICD patients). Median follow-up was 3.1 years. Median age was 73 years, and median ejection fraction was 23%. Adjusted 3-year mortality rates for minority ICD and non-ICD patients were 44.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44.2%–45.7%) and 54.3% (95% CI, 53.4%–55.1%), respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63–0.98; P =0.034). White non-Hispanic patients receiving an ICD had lower adjusted 3-year mortality rates of 47.8% (95% CI, 47.3%–48.3%) compared with 57.3% (95% CI, 56.8%–57.9%) for those with no ICD (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67%–0.83%; P <0.0001). There was no significant interaction between race/ethnicity and lower mortality risk with ICD ( P =0.70). Conclusions— Primary prevention ICDs are associated with lower mortality in nonwhite and Hispanic patients, similar to that seen in white, non-Hispanic patients. These data support a similar approach to ICD patient selection, regardless of race or ethnicity.

Background— Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) reduces morbidity and mortality among selected patients with heart failure in clinical trials. The effectiveness of this therapy in clinical practice has not been well studied. Methods and Results— We compared a cohort of 4471 patients from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry’s Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) Registry hospitalized primarily for heart failure and who received CRT-D between April 1, 2006, and December 31, 2009, to a historical control cohort of 4888 patients with heart failure without CRT-D from the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE) hospitalized between January 1, 2002, and March 31, 2006. Both registries were linked with Medicare claims to evaluate longitudinal outcomes. We included patients from the ICD Registry with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and QRS duration ≥120 ms who were admitted for heart failure. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare outcomes with and without CRT-D after adjustment for important covariates. After multivariable adjustment, CRT-D was associated with lower 3-year risks of death (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.48–0.56; P <0.001), all-cause readmission (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.65–0.73; P <0.001), and cardiovascular readmission (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.56–0.64; P <0.001). The association of CRT-D with mortality did not vary significantly among subgroups defined by age, sex, race, QRS duration, and optimal medical therapy. Conclusions— CRT-D was associated with lower risks of mortality, all-cause readmission, and cardiovascular readmission than medical therapy alone among patients with heart failure in community practice.

Background— Patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation are at higher risk of thromboembolic events than patients with heart failure alone. Yet, the use of anticoagulation therapy varies in clinical practice, especially among older patients, for whom its effectiveness is poorly understood. Methods and Results— Using clinical registry data linked to Medicare claims from 2005 to 2011, we examined outcomes of older patients hospitalized with heart failure and atrial fibrillation who newly initiated anticoagulation therapy at discharge. We used Cox proportional hazards models and inverse probability-weighted treatment estimates to adjust for selection bias. Main outcomes were mortality and readmission at 1 and 3 years. Among 5105 patients in 195 hospitals, 1623 (31.8%) started anticoagulation therapy at discharge. Treated patients had lower unadjusted rates of all-cause mortality (26.4% versus 42.8%; P <0.001) and all-cause readmission (58.4% versus 63.7%; P <0.001) at 1 year. After inverse weighting for the probability of treatment and adjustment for other discharge medications, anticoagulation therapy was associated with significantly lower 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 0.70; 99% confidence interval, 0.59–0.82), but there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of all-cause readmission (hazard ratio, 0.89; 99% confidence interval, 0.78–1.01) or other readmission outcomes. Results were similar at 3 years. Conclusions— Initiation of anticoagulation therapy at hospital discharge was associated with improved mortality at 1 and 3 years but was not associated with improved cardiovascular readmission among older patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation.

Background— Guidelines recommend that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) candidates have an estimated longevity of ≥1 year. Longevity can be affected by chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods and Results— Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD registry linked with the Social Security Death Master File, we assessed the rate of death after primary prevention ICD placement between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007, according to CKD stage. Using Cox models, we identified factors associated with death among patients with CKD. Compared with patients without CKD (n=26 056), those with CKD (n=21 226) were older, less commonly men, more often white, and more frequently had comorbid illness. Compared with patients without CKD, patients with a glomerular filtration rate 30 to 60, glomerular filtration rate <30, and end-stage renal disease on dialysis had a higher risk of death after ICD placement (hazard ratio, 2.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.99–2.18; P <0.0001; hazard ratio, 4.20; 95% confidence interval, 3.92–4.50; P <0.0001; and hazard ratio, 4.80; 95% confidence interval, 4.46–5.17; P <0.0001, respectively). Corresponding 1-year death rates were 4.4%, 9.1%, 20.2%, and 22.4%. Among patients with CKD, factors associated with increased risk of death included CKD severity, age >65 years, heart failure symptoms, diabetes mellitus, lung disease, serum sodium <140 mEq/L, atrial fibrillation or flutter, and a lower ejection fraction. Conclusions— The risk of death after primary prevention ICD placement is proportional to CKD severity. Among patients with CKD, several factors are prognostically significant and could inform clinical decision making on primary prevention ICD candidacy.