Citations

Background— The Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) demonstrated that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy reduces all-cause mortality in patients with New York Heart Association class II/III heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% on optimal medical therapy. Whether ICD therapy reduced sudden death caused by ventricular tachyarrhythmias without affecting heart failure deaths in this population is unknown. Methods and Results— SCD-HeFT randomized 2521 subjects to placebo, amiodarone, or shock-only, single-lead ICD therapy. Over a median follow-up of 45.5 months, a total of 666 deaths occurred, which were reviewed by an Events Committee and initially categorized as cardiac or noncardiac. Cardiac deaths were further adjudicated as resulting from sudden death presumed to be ventricular tachyarrhythmic, bradyarrhythmia, heart failure, or other cardiac causes. ICD therapy significantly reduced cardiac mortality compared with placebo (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.95) and tachyarrhythmia mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.27 to 0.59) and had no impact on mortality resulting from heart failure or noncardiac causes. The cardiac and tachyarrhythmia mortality reductions were evident in subjects with New York Heart Association class II but not in subjects with class III heart failure. The reduction in tachyarrhythmia mortality with ICD therapy was similar in subjects with ischemic and nonischemic disease. Compared with placebo, amiodarone had no significant effect on any mode of death. Conclusions— ICD therapy reduced cardiac mortality and sudden death presumed to be ventricular tachyarrhythmic in SCD-HeFT and had no effect on heart failure mortality. Amiodarone had no effect on all-cause mortality or its cause-specific components, except an increase in non-cardiac mortality in class III patients. Clinical Trial Registration Information— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00000609.

Background— Better insight into the psychosocial factors associated with prehospital delays in seeking care for acute coronary syndromes is needed to inform the design of future interventions. Delay in presenting for care after the onset of symptoms is common, limits the potential benefit of acute reperfusion, and has not been reduced by interventions tested thus far. Methods and Results— Seven hundred ninety-six patients with suspected ischemic heart disease scheduled for clinically indicated imaging stress tests completed questionnaires concerning psychological distress and attachment styles (worthiness to receive care, trustworthiness of others to provide care). The primary dependent variable for this study was response to a question from the rapid early action for coronary treatment trial concerning intention to “wait until very sure” before seeking care for a possible “heart attack.” Responses to this question were strongly associated with actual emergency department-reported and self-reported care delay in the rapid early action for coronary treatment trial. In multivariable ordinal regression models, a more negative view of the trustworthiness of others, greater physical limitations from angina, and no previous revascularization were independently associated with increased intention to wait to seek care for a myocardial infarction. Intention to wait was not associated with inducible ischemia or self-perceived risk of myocardial infarction. Conclusions— Intention to delay seeking care for acute coronary syndromes is associated with a patient’s view of the trustworthiness of others, previous experience with revascularization, and functional limitations, even after adjustment for objective and perceived acute coronary syndromes risk. These findings provide insight into novel factors contributing to longer delay times and may inform future interventions to reduce delay time.

Background— Coronary bypass surgery (CABG) and angioplasty (PTCA) have been compared in several randomized trials, but data about long-term economic and quality-of-life outcomes are limited. Methods and Results— Cost and quality-of-life data were collected prospectively from 934 patients who were randomized in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) and followed up for 10 to12 years. CABG had 53% higher costs initially, but the gap closed to <5% during the first 2 years; after 12 years, the mean cumulative cost of CABG patients was $123 000 versus $120 750 for PTCA, yielding a cost-effectiveness ratio of $14 300/life-year added. CABG patients experienced significantly greater improvement in their physical functioning for the first 3 years but not in later follow-up. Recurrent angina substantially reduced all quality-of-life measures throughout follow-up. Cumulative costs were significantly higher among patients with diabetes, heart failure, and comorbid conditions and among women; costs also were increased by angina, by the number of revascularization procedures, and among patients who died. Conclusion— Early differences between CABG and PTCA in costs and quality of life were no longer significant at 10 to 12 years of follow-up. CABG was cost-effective as compared with PTCA for multivessel disease.