Citations

Background Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is an alternative to long‐term anticoagulation for preventing ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. There are limited long‐term outcomes data for “real‐world” patients undergoing LAAO. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO registry from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2019. We linked LAAO data to inpatient Medicare fee‐for‐service claims data using probabilistic matching to establish a cohort of patients 65 years and older undergoing LAAO with a WATCHMAN device. The primary outcomes were any stroke and all‐cause mortality. Results A total of 34 975 patients with a mean±SD CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes, previous stroke or transient ischemic attack, vascular disease, age 65 to 74 years, and sex category) score of 4.7±1.4 were included. The median follow‐up was 2.8 years (interquartile range, 2.2–3.7 years). The cumulative incidence of any stroke was 1.57 per 100 person‐years (95% CI, 1.45–1.70), with a 1‐year and 5‐year any stroke estimate of 1.70% (95% CI, 1.57–1.84%) and 5.70% (95% CI, 5.37–6.05%), respectively. The cumulative incidence of ischemic stroke was 1.36 per 100 person‐years (95% CI, 1.25–1.48), with a 1‐year and 5‐year ischemic stroke estimate of 1.42% (95% CI, 1.30–1.54%) and 5.03% (95% CI, 4.71–5.36%), respectively. The cumulative incidence of death was 10.82 per 100 person‐years (95% CI, 10.49–11.13), with a 5‐year mortality estimate of 44.34% (95% CI, 43.35–45.23%). Conclusions Long‐term stroke rates in a large nationally representative cohort of Medicare patients following LAAO were low and durably consistent during long‐term follow‐up despite a high thromboembolic risk. High mortality rates in this elderly population underscore the importance of incorporating patient values and preferences when considering LAAO.

Background: The Food and Drug Administration approved left atrial appendage occlusion with the Watchman device for patients who are at increased stroke risk and are suitable for oral anticoagulation but who have an appropriate reason to seek a nondrug alternative. These broad criteria raise the question of their interpretation in clinical practice. There is a lack of studies comprehensively evaluating the indications for Watchman implantation among a large series of patients from contemporary, real-world practice in the United States. Methods: We used the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry to identify Watchman procedures performed between 2016 and 2018. We assessed procedural indications for Watchman implantation in the United States and evaluated the association between procedural indications and in-hospital adverse events. Results: A total of 38 314 procedures were included. The mean patient age was 76.1±8.1 years, and 58.9% were men. The mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was 4.8±1.5, whereas the mean hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol (HAS-BLED) score was 3.0±1.1. Prior stroke or transient ischemic attack was reported in 40.2% and prior bleeding in 70.1%, with gastrointestinal bleeding being most common (41.9%). The most common site-reported procedural indications for Watchman implantation were increased thromboembolic risk (64.8%) and history of major bleed (64.3%), followed by high fall risk (35.5%). Most (71.9%) had ≥2 procedural indications. Patients with high fall risk had increased risk of in-hospital adverse events (adjusted OR, 1.12; P =0.025), but no other differences were found in the risk of in-hospital adverse events by procedural indication. Conclusions: Among patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry, the most common procedural indications for Watchman implantation were increased thromboembolic risk, history of major bleed, and high fall risk. A majority of patients had multiple procedural indications. High fall risk conferred a modestly increased risk of in-hospital adverse events.

Background: Whether patients with STEMI with longer times from symptom onset to hospital presentation are less likely to be treated with any reperfusion therapy or treated with less urgency resulting in longer door-to-balloon and door-to-needle times is not known. The relationship between delay in hospital presentation and the quality of reperfusion therapy for patients with STEMI has not been examined Methods: We constructed 3 cohorts of STEMI patients to analyze use of any reperfusion (n=440,398), door-to-balloon time (n=67,207), and door-to-drug time (n=183,441) as a function of delay in hospital presentation. We constructed multivariable generalized linear models for each outcome to estimate the associations between delay in hospital presentation adjusted for all patient and hospital characteristics. Results: In adjusted analysis, longer times from symptom onset to hospital presentation was associated with lower use of any reperfusion therapy (p<0.0001 for trend). For early presenters with times of ≤1 hour, >1 to 2 hours, and >2 to 3 hours, 77%, 77%, and 73% of patients received any reperfusion therapy, respectively, and late presenters with times >9 to 10 hours, >10 to 11 hours, and >11 to 12 hours were treated with any reperfusion therapy in 53%, 50%, and 46%, respectively. Delay in hospital presentation was associated with longer drug-to-balloon and door-to-drug times (p<0.0001 for trend). For time intervals of ≤ 1 hour, >1 to 2 hours, >2 to 3 hours, >9 to 10 hours, >10 to 11 hours, and >11 to 12 hours, patients with STEMI were treated with door-to-balloon times of 99, 101, 106, 123, 125, and 123 minutes respectively. For delay time intervals of ≤ 1 hour, >1 to 2 hours, >2 to 3 hours, >9 to 10 hours, >10 to 11 hours, and >11 to 12 hours, patients were treated with door-to-drug times of 32, 34, 36, 46, 44, and 46 minutes, respectively. Conclusions: Longer time from symptom onset to hospital presentation has important implications for subsequent treatment and was associated with lower use of any reperfusion therapy and longer door-to-balloon and door-to-drug times. Longer delay in hospital presentation is associated with worse system performance for reperfusion therapy quality and represents an opportunity to improve quality of care for STEMI patients.

Current guidelines recommend cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) in appropriate patients undergoing ICD implantation. However, not all physicians who implant ICDs are trained to perform CRT-D. We examined the ICD Registry to assess whether use of CRT-D implantation varied by physician certification. We determined the certification of 2128 physicians who had submitted >=10 cases between April 2006 and June 2007. We excluded patients with a prior ICD, an epicardial lead, or aged ≤18 years, leaving 111,293 patients. Physicians were grouped into mutually exclusive categories reflecting highest current certification- Electrophysiology (EP), Cardiovascular Disease (CVD), Thoracic Surgery (TS), Internal Medicine (IM), Heart Rhythm Society alternative pathway (HRS), and Other. Patients were considered eligible for CRT-D if they met the following criteria: QRS duration >=120ms, LVEF ≪26>35%, and NYHA Class III-IV. We examined crude rates of CRT-D across physician categories and developed a logistic regression model to assess the association of physician certification and CRT-D implantation. Candidate variables included demographics, cardiac status, comorbidities, and physician volume. Odds ratios were converted to relative risks. 35,851 patients met all three eligibility criteria for CRT-D, and 28,932 (80.7%) had a CRT-D implanted. EP physicians implanted the majority of CRT-D (73.6%), with fewer CRT-D placed by CVD (20.6%), TS (0.9%), IM (0.8%), HRS (1.1%), or Other (3.1%). The crude rate of CRT-D implantation was highest among EP physicians and lower in all other categories: EP- 83.1%, CVD-75.8%, TS- 57.9%, IM- 76.5%, HRS- 77.1%, Other- 73.5% (p<0.001). In multivariable analysis, CVD and TS physicians were less likely to implant CRT-D in eligible patients compared with EP physicians (EP: Ref; CVD: RR 0.92 (0.90 – 0.94); TS: RR 0.76 (0.71– 0.85)). CRT-D rates were comparable for other physician groups (IM RR 0.95 (0.87–1.01); HRS: RR 0.97 (0.90 –1.02); Other RR 0.97 (0.93–1.00)). Among eligible patients, use of CRT-D varies by physician certification. Given the benefits of CRT-D, clinicians should consider referring eligible patients to physicians with familiarity and expertise in CRT-D implantation.

Background— The ICD Registry was established in 2006 in part to measure quality of care in patients undergoing implantation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs); however, whether outcomes have improved since initiation of the registry is unknown. Our objective was to examine changes over time in 3 quality metrics available from the registry. Methods and Results— We performed an observational study of 367 153 patients who received new ICD implants from April 2006 to March 2010. Three quality metrics were selected: Adverse events (in-hospital complications or mortality), optimal medical therapy (OMT), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). OMT was defined as prescription of β-blocker and either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker in eligible patients. CRT eligibility was determined by QRS ≥120 ms, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, and New York Heart Association class III/IV. Observation periods were divided into four 12-month intervals. We analyzed changes over time and used hierarchical logistic regression to adjust for potential confounders. Adverse events decreased over time (3.7% to 2.8%, P <0.001). Among eligible patients, rates of OMT and CRT increased over time (OMT: 69.0% to 74.3%, P <0.001; CRT: 80.5% to 84.2%, P <0.001). After adjustment for potential confounders, patients were significantly less likely to experience adverse events in year 4 than in year 1 (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.71–0.79) and significantly more likely to receive OMT (odds ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.26–1.32) and CRT (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.35–1.49). Conclusions— Since initiation of the ICD Registry, adverse events have been decreasing, and rates of OMT and CRT among eligible patients have been increasing, although there is still significant room for improvement.

ABSTRACTObjectivesIdentifying the distributions and determinants of fluoroscopy time for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundICA and PCI are significant contributors to radiation exposure from medical imaging in the US. Fluoroscopy time is a potentially modifiable determinant of radiation exposure for these procedures, but has not been well characterized in contemporary practice.MethodsWe evaluated the distribution of fluoroscopy time in patients undergoing ICA and/or PCI in the CathPCI Registry®, stratifying patients by numerous clinical scenarios. Hierarchical models were used to determine patient, procedure, operator and hospital‐level factors associated with fluoroscopy time for these procedures.ResultsOur study included a total of 3,295,348 ICA and PCI procedures performed by 9,600 operators from January 2005 through June 2009. There was wide variation in fluoroscopy times for these procedures with median [IQR] fluoroscopy times of 2.6 [1.7–4.5] minutes for ICA, 6.7 [4.2–10.8] minutes for ICA in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), 10.1 [6.0–17.4] minutes for PCI, 10.7 [7.0–16.9] minutes for PCI with ICA, and 16.0 [10.6–24.0] minutes for PCI and ICA in patients with prior CABG. Prolonged fluoroscopy times (>30 minutes) were rare for ICA, but occurred in 6.7% of PCIs and 14.7% of PCIs in patients with prior CABG. After accounting for patient characteristics and procedure complexity, operator and hospital‐level factors explained nearly 20% of the variation in fluoroscopy time.ConclusionsFluoroscopy times vary widely during ICA and PCI with operator and hospital‐level factors contributing substantially to these differences. A better understanding of potentially modifiable sources of this variation will elucidate opportunities for enhancing the radiation safety of these procedures. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.