Improved outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator in systolic heart failure: Analysis of the Japan cardiac device treatment registry database
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Yokoshiki H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10848589 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAccurate prediction for survival in individualized patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) is difficult.MethodsWe analyzed the New Japan cardiac device treatment registry (JCDTR) database to develop a survival prediction model for CRT-D recipients.ResultsFour hundred and eighty-two CRT-D recipients, at the implantation year 2018-2021, with a QRS width ≥120 ms and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% at baseline, were analyzed. During an average follow-up of 21 ± 10 months, death occurred in 66 of 482 CRT-D patients (14%). A prediction model estimating annual survival probability was developed using Cox regression with internal validation. With seven explanation predictors (age >75 years, serum creatinine >1.4 mg/dL, blood hemoglobin <12 g/dL, heart rate ≥90/min, LVEF, prior NSVT, and QRS width <150 ms), the model distinguished patients with and without all-cause death, with an optimism-corrected C-statistics of 0.766, 0.764, and 0.768, and calibration slope of 1.01, 1.00, and 1.00 at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years. Additionally, we have devised the calculator of survival probability for individual CRT-D recipients.ConclusionsUsing routine available variables, we have developed a survival prediction model for individual CRT-D recipients.
| S-EPMC11730701 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPanoramic studies in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) focusing on the etiology and indication are scarce. Besides, a controversy exists regarding requirement of a defibrillator in non-ischemic patients for primary prevention with CRT.MethodsAnnual trends of de novo CRT-D implantations from 2011 to 2020 and outcomes of those between January 2011 and August 2015 were analyzed from the Japan cardiac device treatment registry (JCDTR) and New JCDTR database.ResultsFrom 2011 to 2020, 8062 CRT-D recipients were registered, whose dominant indication was primary prevention of sudden cardiac death with a steady rate of about 70%. There was no significant temporal change of the proportion of non-ischemic patients being about 70% and 65% for primary and secondary prevention, respectively. Non-ischemic patients for primary prevention were associated with increased odds of appropriate ICD therapy [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.66; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-2.75; p = .047] and reduced odds of any death (aHR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.44-0.99; p = .046) as compared to ischemic patients.ConclusionsProportion of non-ischemic etiology was much higher than that of ischemic one in the CRT-D cohort. Based on the higher odds of appropriate ICD therapy, non-ischemic patients for primary prevention appear to be prudently selected in Japan.
| S-EPMC10549811 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The choice of cardiac resynchronization therapy device, with (CRT-D) or without (CRT-P) a defibrillator, in patients with heart failure largely depends on the physician?s discretion, because it has not been established which subjects benefit most from a defibrillator. METHODS:We examined the annual trend of CRT device implantations between 2006 and 2014, and evaluated the factors related to the device selection (CRT-D or CRT-P) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with heart failure by analyzing the Japan Cardiac Device Treatment Registry (JCDTR) database from January 2011 and August 2015 (CRT-D, n=2714; CRT-P, n=555). RESULTS:The proportion of CRT-D implantations for primary prevention among all the CRT-D recipients was more than 70% during the study period. The number of CRT-D implantations for primary prevention reached a maximum in 2011 and decreased gradually between 2011 and 2014, whereas CRT-P implantations increased year by year until 2011 and remained unchanged in recent years. Multivariate analysis identified age (odds ratio [OR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.95, P<0.0001), male sex (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.28-3.11, P<0.005), reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.98, P<0.0001), and non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) (OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.87-4.35, P<0.0001) as independent factors favoring the choice of CRT-D. CONCLUSIONS:Younger age, male sex, reduced LVEF, and a history of NSVT were independently associated with the choice of CRT-D for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with heart failure in Japan.
| S-EPMC5129119 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is generally used in patients with atrioventricular block and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. In the current case, a cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator device was implanted in a patient with non-obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with preserved ejection fraction and atrioventricular block to achieve both more physiological pacing and life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia management.
| S-EPMC6931796 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is a cardiac arrhythmia frequently documented in patients requiring implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and/or cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D). Patients with diagnosed AF at the point of ICD or CRT-D implantation may have an impaired follow-up outcome.MethodsThe German DEVICE I-II registry is a nationwide prospective multicentre database of patients implanted with ICD and CRT-D with clinical follow-up data. We analysed a 1-year follow up of implanted patients with AF and with sinus rhythm (SR).ResultsA total of 4,929 ICD/CRT patients are included in the present analysis: 946 (19.2%) were in AF and 3,983 (80.8%) were SR at time of device implantation. AF patients had a significantly more comorbid profile including older age {72 [interquartile range (IQR), 66-77] vs. 66 (IQR, 56-73) years; P<0.001}, and higher rate of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <30% (68.2% vs. 61.0%; P<0.001), peripheral artery disease (4.5% vs. 2.7%; P=0.002), diabetes (33.6% vs. 25.5%; P<0.001), hypertension (58.4% vs. 51.1%; P<0.001) and renal failure (22.6% vs. 15.3%; P<0.001). The intra-hospital complication rate was 4.3% in the AF and 3.6% in the SR group (P=0.38). In 1-year follow-up AF patients experienced a significantly higher rate of defibrillator shocks (25% vs. 15.3%; P<0.001). One-year estimated mortality was 10.8% in the AF and 5.9% in the SR group (P<0.001), while estimated 1-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) rate was 11.2% vs. 7.0% (P<0.001). The effects of AF on electrical shocks and mortality persisted after adjusting for age, sex, advanced New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, severely impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), coronary artery disease (CAD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic renal failure (CRF), QRS duration, and type of indication for electronic device implantation.ConclusionsOur clinical data on an extended cohort of contemporary patients confirm the significant impact of AF, and its associated comorbidities, upon mortality and major adverse events after implantation of ICD/CRT.
| S-EPMC11009579 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsRandomized data on the efficacy/safety of cardiac resynchronization therapy with vs. without defibrillator (CRT-D,-P) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are scarce. We aimed to evaluate survival associated with use of CRT-D vs. CRT-P in a contemporary cohort with HFrEF.Methods and resultsPatients from Swedish HF Registry treated with CRT-D/CRT-P and fulfilling criteria for primary prevention defibrillator use were included. Logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of CRT-D non-use. All-cause mortality was compared in CRT-D vs. CRT-P by Cox regression in a 1 : 1 propensity-score-matched cohort. Of 1988 patients with CRT, 1108 (56%) had CRT-D and 880 (44%) CRT-P. Older age, higher ejection fraction (EF), female sex, and the lack of referral to HF nurse-led outpatient clinic were major determinants of CRT-D non-use. After matching, 645 CRT-D patients were compared with 645 with CRT-P. The CRT-D use was associated with lower 1- and 3-year all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR):0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI):0.58-0.98; HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68-0.99, respectively]. Results were consistent in all pre-specified subgroups except for CRT-D use being associated with lower 3-year mortality in patients with an EF < 30% but not in those with an EF ≥ 30% (HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.59-0.89 and HR: 1.24, 95% CI: 0.83-1.85, respectively; P-interaction = 0.02).ConclusionIn a contemporary HFrEF cohort, CRT-D was associated with lower mortality compared with CRT-P. The CRT-D use was less likely in older patients, females, and in patients not referred to HF nurse-led outpatient clinic. Our findings support the use of CRT-D vs. CRT-P in HFrEF, in particular with severely reduced EF.
| S-EPMC8742627 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces the risk for mortality and heart failure-related events in select patients. Little is known about the use of CRT in combination with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients who are eligible for this therapy in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo (1) identify patient, clinician, and hospital characteristics associated with CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) use and (2) determine the extent of hospital-level variation in the use of CRT-D among guideline-eligible patients undergoing ICD placement.Design, setting, and participantsMulticenter retrospective cohort from 1428 hospitals participating in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry between April 1, 2010, and June 30, 2014. Adult patients meeting class I or IIa guideline recommendations for CRT at the time of device implantation were included in this study.Main outcomes and measuresImplantation of an ICD with or without CRT.ResultsA total of 63 506 eligible patients (88.6%) received CRT-D at the time of device implantation. The mean (SD) ages of those in the ICD and CRT-D groups were 67.9 (12.2) years and 68.4 (11.5) years, respectively. In hierarchical multivariable models, black race was independently associated with lower use of CRT-D (odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.83) as was nonprivate insurance (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95 for Medicare and OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.82 for Medicaid). Clinician factors associated with greater CRT-D use included clinician implantation volume (OR, 1.01 per 10 additional devices implanted; 95% CI, 1.01-1.01) and electrophysiology training (OR, 3.13 as compared with surgery-boarded clinicians; 95% CI, 2.50-3.85). At the hospital level, the overall median risk-standardized rate of CRT-D use was 79.9% (range, 26.7%-100%; median OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.99-2.18).Conclusions and relevanceIn a national cohort of patients eligible for CRT-D at the time of device implantation, nearly 90% received a CRT-D device. However, use of CRT-D differed by race and implanting operator characteristics. After accounting for these factors, the use of CRT-D continued to vary widely by hospital. Addressing disparities and variation in CRT-D use among guideline-eligible patients may improve patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC5814986 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAtrial fibrillation is common in patients with heart failure, but outcomes of patients with both conditions who receive cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) compared with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) alone are unclear.Methods and resultsUsing the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's ICD Registry linked with Medicare claims, we identified 8951 patients with atrial fibrillation who were eligible for CRT-D and underwent first-time device implantation for primary prevention between April 2006 and December 2009. We used Cox proportional hazards models and inverse probability-weighted estimates to compare outcomes with CRT-D versus ICD alone. Cumulative incidence of mortality (744 [33%] for ICD; 1893 [32%] for CRT-D) and readmission (1788 [76%] for ICD; 4611 [76%] for CRT-D) within 3 years and complications within 90 days were similar between groups. After inverse weighting for the probability of receiving CRT-D, risks of mortality (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.92), all-cause readmission (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.92), and heart failure readmission (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.76) were lower with CRT-D compared with ICD alone. There was no significant difference in the 90-day complication rate (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.29). We observed hospital-level variation in the use of CRT-D among patients with atrial fibrillation.ConclusionsAmong eligible patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation, CRT-D was associated with lower risks of mortality, all-cause readmission, and heart failure readmission, as well as with a similar risk of complications compared with ICD alone.
| S-EPMC4910638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) provides significant reduction in morbidity and mortality in select patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and specific parameters of electrocardiographic evidence of dyssynchrony. Relative to the 2012 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society guideline update for patient selection, little is known about the contemporary use of CRT in the United States.ObjectiveTo describe the use of CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) in the period around guideline revision.Design, setting, and participantsAll patients undergoing new CRT-D implantations in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2015, at 1710 participating hospitals were identified for this population-based study. Rates of CRT-D implantation that were concordant and discordant with the 2012 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society update of the 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy were determined. Analysis began in January 2012.Main outcomes and measuresIncrease in guideline-concordant CRT-D implantation.ResultsAmong 135 253 patients undergoing initial CRT-D implantation, 88 923 were included in the study cohort, of which 73 859 implants (83.1%) were guideline concordant. The proportion of guideline-concordant devices increased from 81.2% (16 710 of 20 481) in 2012 to 84.2% (20 515 of 24 356) in 2015 (P for trend < .001). Significant clustering was noted with 33% (565 of 1710) of hospitals accounting for greater than 70% (10 545 of 15 065) of guideline-discordant CRT-D implants. Conduction abnormalities, in particular, underlying right bundle branch block (3597 [23.9%] vs 7425 [10.1%]; P < .001) and nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay (3341 [22.2%] vs 4769 [6.5%]; P < .001) were more common in those who received guideline-discordant devices.Conclusions and relevanceRates of guideline-concordant CRT-D implantation increased during the study. The major fraction of guideline-discordant implants were clustered at a minority of hospitals. Conduction abnormalities, particularly non-left bundle branch block and nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay, correlated with guideline-discordant implants indicating continued opportunity for dissemination and understanding of guideline updates.
| S-EPMC6584888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMagnetic resonance (MR) imaging (MRI) for patients with implantable cardiac devices is becoming more routine, with the development of MR conditional devices allowing more patients access to the imaging they need. However, for this to be performed safely, strict protocols must be followed necessitating close collaboration between cardiology and radiology departments. We present a case where mandatory device re-programming of a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator device into MRI mode was not performed pre-scan leading to temporary device dysfunction with no clinical consequences.Case summaryA 72-year-old man presented to a device clinic for a routine device interrogation. An atrial tachycardia response episode was recorded at the same time as the patient reported having undergone an MRI scan at a local centre. The electrogram demonstrated temporary right ventricular loss of capture with standard output programming, and a short episode of oversensing on the atrial and ventricular channel which was not sustained for long enough to meet tachycardia detection.DiscussionWe demonstrate two potential electrophysiological effects of MRI on pacemakers, where the device had not been appropriately re-programmed pre-procedure. This illustrates that whilst MRI in patients with implantable cardiac devices is safe, strict protocols must be followed requiring robust multidisciplinary communication.
| S-EPMC8454201 | biostudies-literature