Masoudi, Frederick A.

Background In US clinical practice, many patients who undergo placement of an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator ( ICD ) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death receive dual‐chamber devices. The superiority of dual‐chamber over single‐chamber devices in reducing the risk of inappropriate ICD shocks in clinical practice has not been established. The objective of this study was to compare risk of adverse outcomes, including inappropriate shocks, between single‐ and dual‐chamber ICD s for primary prevention. Methods and Results We identified patients receiving a single‐ or dual‐chamber ICD for primary prevention who did not have an indication for pacing from 15 hospitals within 7 integrated health delivery systems in the Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillators from 2006 to 2009. The primary outcome was time to first inappropriate shock. ICD shocks were adjudicated for appropriateness. Other outcomes included all‐cause hospitalization, heart failure hospitalization, and death. Patient, clinician, and hospital‐level factors were accounted for using propensity score weighting methods. Among 1042 patients without pacing indications, 54.0% (n=563) received a single‐chamber device and 46.0% (n=479) received a dual‐chamber device. In a propensity‐weighted analysis, device type was not significantly associated with inappropriate shock (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.59–1.38 [ P =0.65]), all‐cause hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.87–1.21 [ P =0.76]), heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.72–1.21 [ P =0.59]), or death (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.93–1.53 [ P =0.17]). Conclusions Among patients who received an ICD for primary prevention without indications for pacing, dual‐chamber devices were not associated with lower risk of inappropriate shock or differences in hospitalization or death compared with single‐chamber devices. This study does not justify the use of dual‐chamber devices to minimize inappropriate shocks.

Objective Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have higher risk of sudden cardiac death; however, they may not receive implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), in part due to higher risk of complications. We evaluated whether CKD is associated with greater risk of device-delivered shocks/antitachycardia pacing (ATP) therapies among patients receiving a primary prevention ICD. Methods We studied participants in the observational Cardiovascular Research Network Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators. CKD was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Outcomes included all delivered shocks/ATPs therapies and type of shock/ATP therapies (inappropriate or appropriate, determined by physician adjudication) within the 3 years. We evaluated the associations between CKD and time to first device therapy, burden of device therapy, and inappropriate versus appropriate device therapy, adjusting for demographics, comorbidity, laboratory values and medication use. Results Among 2161 participants, 1066 (49.3%) had CKD (eGFR 44±11 mL/min/1.73 m2) at ICD implantation. During mean of 2.26±0.89 years, 9.8% and 18.5% of participants had at least one inappropriate and appropriate shock/ATP therapies, respectively. CKD was not associated with time to first shock/ATP therapies (adjusted HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05), overall burden of shock/ATP therapies (adjusted relative rate 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17) or inappropriate versus appropriate shock/ATP therapies (adjusted relative risk 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.14) compared with not having CKD. Conclusions In adults receiving a primary prevention ICD, mild-to-moderate CKD was not associated with the timing, burden or appropriateness of subsequent device therapy. Potential concern for inappropriate ICD-delivered therapies should not preclude ICDs among eligible patients with CKD.

Background Patient sex and age may influence rates of death after receiving an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator for primary prevention. Differences in outcomes other than mortality and whether these differences vary by heart failure symptoms, etiology, and left ventricular ejection fraction are not well characterized. Methods and Results We studied 2954 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤0.35 undergoing first‐time implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator for primary prevention within the Cardiovascular Research Network; 769 patients (26%) were women, and 2827 (62%) were aged >65 years. In a median follow‐up of 2.4 years, outcome rates per 1000 patient‐years were 109 for death, 438 for hospitalization, and 111 for heart failure hospitalizations. Procedure‐related complications occurred in 8.36%. In multivariable models, women had significantly lower risks of death (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.80) and heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98) and higher risks for complications (hazard ratio 1.38, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.90) than men; patients aged >65 years had higher risks of death (hazard ratio 1.55, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.86) and heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio 1.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.49) than younger patients. Age and sex differences were generally consistent in strata according to symptoms, etiology, and severity of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, except the higher risk of complications in women, which differed by New York Heart Association classification ( P =0.03 for sex–New York Heart Association interaction), and the risk of heart failure hospitalization in older patients, which differed by etiology of heart failure ( P =0.05 for age–etiology interaction). Conclusions The burden of adverse outcomes after receipt of an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator for primary prevention is substantial and varies according to patient age and sex. These differences in outcome generally do not vary according to baseline heart failure characteristics.

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 Assessing hospital quality in the performance of carotid endarterectomy ( CEA ) requires appropriate risk adjustment across hospitals with varying case mixes. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a prediction model to assess the risk of in‐hospital stroke or death after CEA that could aid in the assessment of hospital quality. Methods and Results Patients from National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR)'s Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy (CARE) Registry undergoing CEA without acute evolving stroke from 2005 to 2013 were included. In‐hospital stroke or death was modeled using hierarchical logistic regression with 20 candidate variables and accounting for hospital‐level clustering. Internal validation was achieved with bootstrapping; model discrimination and calibration were assessed. A total of 213 (1.7%) primary end point events occurred during 12 889 procedures. Independent predictors of stroke or death included age, prior peripheral artery disease, diabetes mellitus, prior coronary artery disease, having a symptomatic carotid lesion, having a contralateral carotid occlusion, or having New York Heart Association Class III or IV heart failure. The model was well calibrated and demonstrated moderate discriminative ability (c‐statistic 0.65). The NCDR CEA score was then developed to support simple, prospective risk quantification in the clinical setting. Conclusions The NCDR CEA score, comprising 7 clinical variables, predicts in‐hospital stroke or death after CEA . This model can be used to estimate hospital risk‐adjusted outcomes for CEA and to assist with the assessment of hospital quality.

Aims: The NCDR CathPCI Registry collects detailed clinical, process-of-care and outcomes data for patients undergoing coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the USA. The registry contributes to quality of care by providing data feedback on a wide range of performance metrics to participating centres and by facilitating local and national quality improvement efforts. Interventions: No treatments are mandated, participating centres receive routine quality-of-care and outcomes performance feedback reports and access to a quality dashboard for personalized performance reports. Population: Patients undergoing cardiac catheterization and PCI are retrospectively identified. No informed consent is required, as data are anonymised. From inception in 1998, more than 12 million records have been submitted from 1577 participating US centres. Baseline data: Approximately 250 fields encompassing patient demographics, medical history and risk factors, hospital presentation, initial cardiac status, procedural details, medications, laboratory values, and in-hospital outcomes. Linkages with outside sources of data have permitted longitudinal outcomes assessment in some cases. Centre personnel enter the data into the registry, in some cases facilitated by software vendors. There are non-financial incentives for centre participation. Data completeness is noteworthy with most fields missing at rates less than 5%. A comprehensive data quality program is employed to enhance data validity. Endpoints: Main outcome measures include quality process metrics and in-hospital patient outcomes. Data are available for research by application to: http://www.ncdr.com

The American Heart Association’s (AHA’s) mission is “to build healthier lives, free of cardiovascular diseases and stroke.” This first article in a 2-part series will serve to present an overview of the work the AHA has undertaken to translate evidence into practice for healthcare professionals. It describes the extensive work of the AHA to support and further the delivery of evidence-based medicine, which includes the following: (1) supporting scientific discovery and the next generation of healthcare professionals and researchers; (2) disseminating scientific information; (3) developing evidence-based guidelines and statements; (4) creating and advocating for the implementation of performance indicators/measures; (5) developing clinical decision support and quality improvement tools; and (6) developing directed-cause campaigns, all of which can lead to improved patient care. This article also discusses the need for novel approaches and some of the AHA’s evolving strategies to help address gaps in care. The second article, which will be published shortly after this one, will examine the AHA’s efforts to engage and empower healthcare consumers to become more involved with their own health and health care.