McManus, David D.

Moritz F Sinner, 2012 Finalist and Presenting Author

Introduction: Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in select patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). The occurrence of device therapies after ICD implantation in contemporary clinical practice is not well described, especially in patient subgroups designated in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 2005 Coverage with Evidence Development (CED). Methods: The Longitudinal Study of ICDs assessed rates and correlates of device therapies (overall and those requiring shock) up to 3 years post-implant among 2540 patients with LVSD receiving first-time primary prevention ICDs in 7 US health care systems from 2006-2009. Implant data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry were linked to electronic longitudinal health care system data and a novel centrally adjudicated repository of device therapies abstracted from medical records. Proportional hazard models evaluated associations with device therapies by appropriateness, adjusted for demographic and clinical factors. Results: Subjects were 26% women, 35% <65 years old, and 59% non-Hispanic white. Over a mean 26 months, 738 (29.1%) received at least 1 therapy (median 2). Estimated 3-year risk of any device therapy was 36% (24% appropriate, 12% inappropriate); for therapy requiring shock, corresponding values were 24%, 14%, 9%. The rate of appropriate therapy was higher in men than women (adjusted hazard ratio 1.84, 95% confidence interval 1.43-2.35). The rate of inappropriate therapy was higher for subjects <65 than for those >=65 years (1.40, 1.04-1.88), and lower among 2009 implants compared to 2006 (0.66, 0.46-0.95). Regarding the 3 CMS CED patient subgroups, neither ejection fraction nor heart failure symptom severity was associated with device therapy; for LVSD etiology, the rate of inappropriate therapy was nominally but not significantly higher among subjects with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy of < 9 months duration (1.38, 0.88-2.18). Conclusions: In a representative cohort of primary prevention ICD patients in usual care, rates of device therapies were somewhat lower than in landmark trials, differed by some patient characteristics, but did not differ meaningfully for CMS CED subgroups.

Clinically recognized atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with higher risk of complications, including ischemic stroke, cognitive decline, heart failure, myocardial infarction, and death. It is increasingly recognized that AF frequently is undetected until complications such as stroke or heart failure occur. Hence, the public and clinicians have an intense interest in detecting AF earlier. However, the most appropriate strategies to detect undiagnosed AF (sometimes referred to as subclinical AF) and the prognostic and therapeutic implications of AF detected by screening are uncertain. Our report summarizes the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s virtual workshop focused on identifying key research priorities related to AF screening. Global experts reviewed major knowledge gaps and identified critical research priorities in the following areas: (1) role of opportunistic screening; (2) AF as a risk factor, risk marker, or both; (3) relationship between AF burden detected with long-term monitoring and outcomes/treatments; (4) designs of potential randomized trials of systematic AF screening with clinically relevant outcomes; and (5) role of AF screening after ischemic stroke. Our report aims to inform and catalyze AF screening research that will advance innovative, resource-efficient, and clinically relevant studies in diverse populations to improve the diagnosis, management, and prognosis of patients with undiagnosed AF.

Abstract Background We previously tested an intervention featuring educational outreach with modified academic detailing (AD) to increase anticoagulation (AC) use in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Currently, we compare providers receiving and not receiving AD in terms of inclusion of our AD educational topics and shared decision-making elements in documentation. Methods Physicians reviewed themes discussed with providers during AD and evaluated charts for evidence of shared decision-making. We then compared frequency of documentation of individual items for providers receiving AD compared with non-AD providers. To understand baseline documentation practices of AD providers, we also randomly selected encounters of AD providers before their AD participation. Results There were 113 eligible encounters in the four months after AD - 36 from AD providers and 77 from non-AD providers. We also identified 35 encounters from AD providers before participating in the intervention. Providers infrequently documented many reviewed items (% documenting): AC mentioned (44%), multiple options for AC (5%), CHA2DS2-VASc score (11%), bleeding risk factors (2%). Compared with non-AD providers, AD providers had statistically significant higher percentages for the following items: mention of AC (64% versus 35%), stroke risk (11% versus 0%), AC benefits (8% versus 0%), patient involvement (70% versus 0%). There was no improvement, however, for AD providers compared with baseline documentation percentages. Conclusions Providers infrequently documented important items in AC management and shared decision-making. AD participation did not improve documentation. Improving adoption of AD educational items may require more prolonged interaction with providers. Improving shared decision-making may require an intervention more focused on it and its documentation. Trial Registration The trial was registered as NCT03583008 on Clinicaltrials.gov on July 11, 2018.

Background Primary prevention implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in selected patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction by delivering therapies (antitachycardia pacing or shocks) to terminate potentially lethal arrhythmias; inappropriate therapies also occur. We assessed device therapies among adults receiving primary prevention ICDs in 7 healthcare systems. Methods and Results We linked medical record data, adjudicated device therapies, and the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. Survival analysis evaluated therapy probability and predictors after ICD implant from 2006 to 2009, with attention to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups: left ventricular ejection fraction, 31% to 35%; nonischemic cardiomyopathy <9 months’ duration; and New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator. Among 2540 patients, 35% were <65 years old, 26% were women, and 59% were white. During 27 (median) months, 738 (29%) received ≥1 therapy. Three‐year therapy risk was 36% (appropriate, 24%; inappropriate, 12%). Appropriate therapy was more common in men (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43–2.35). Inappropriate therapy was more common in patients with atrial fibrillation (adjusted HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.68–2.87), but less common among patients ≥65 years old versus younger (adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54–0.95) and in recent implants (eg, in 2009 versus 2006; adjusted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46–0.95). In Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development analysis, inappropriate therapy was less common with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator versus single chamber (adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36–0.84); therapy risk did not otherwise differ for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups. Conclusions In this community cohort of primary prevention patients receiving ICD, therapy delivery varied across demographic and clinical characteristics, but did not differ meaningfully for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups.

Background Tools for the prediction of atrial fibrillation ( AF ) may identify high‐risk individuals more likely to benefit from preventive interventions and serve as a benchmark to test novel putative risk factors. Methods and Results Individual‐level data from 3 large cohorts in the U nited S tates (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities [ ARIC ] study, the Cardiovascular Health Study [ CHS ], and the Framingham Heart Study [ FHS ]), including 18 556 men and women aged 46 to 94 years (19% A frican A mericans, 81% whites) were pooled to derive predictive models for AF using clinical variables. Validation of the derived models was performed in 7672 participants from the Age, Gene and Environment—Reykjavik study ( AGES ) and the Rotterdam Study ( RS ). The analysis included 1186 incident AF cases in the derivation cohorts and 585 in the validation cohorts. A simple 5‐year predictive model including the variables age, race, height, weight, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, current smoking, use of antihypertensive medication, diabetes, and history of myocardial infarction and heart failure had good discrimination (C‐statistic, 0.765; 95% CI , 0.748 to 0.781). Addition of variables from the electrocardiogram did not improve the overall model discrimination (C‐statistic, 0.767; 95% CI , 0.750 to 0.783; categorical net reclassification improvement, −0.0032; 95% CI , −0.0178 to 0.0113). In the validation cohorts, discrimination was acceptable ( AGES C‐statistic, 0.664; 95% CI , 0.632 to 0.697 and RS C‐statistic, 0.705; 95% CI , 0.664 to 0.747) and calibration was adequate. Conclusion A risk model including variables readily available in primary care settings adequately predicted AF in diverse populations from the U nited S tates and E urope.