Dataset Information

Selection of patients eligible for implantable cardioverter defibrillator: beyond left ventricular ejection fraction.

ABSTRACT: The selection of patients eligible for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), in primary prevention, is a critical moment in the management of the patients with cardiomyopathies as it needs a right balance of the patients' arrhythmic risk and the risks related to the implantation, as well as the device costs. Several data indicate that left ventricular ejection fraction alone is not a sufficient criterion for a proper identification of patients who could benefit most from ICD. Numerous findings show that genetic analysis and characterization of myocardial fibrosis with magnetic resonance imaging allow an important improvement of this process.

SUBMITTER: Rizzello V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9653128 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Selection of patients eligible for implantable cardioverter defibrillator: beyond left ventricular ejection fraction.

Rizzello Vittoria V

European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology 20221112 Suppl I

The selection of patients eligible for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), in primary prevention, is a critical moment in the management of the patients with cardiomyopathies as it needs a right balance of the patients' arrhythmic risk and the risks related to the implantation, as well as the device costs. Several data indicate that left ventricular ejection fraction alone is not a sufficient criterion for a proper identification of patients who could benefit most from ICD. Numerous fi ...[more]

PMID: 36380775

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceClinical trials of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have included a minority of patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 30% and 35%. Because a large number of ICDs in the United States are implanted in such patients, it is important to study survival associated with this therapy.ObjectiveTo characterize patients with LVEF between 30% and 35% and compare the survival of those with and without ICDs.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD registry (January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2007) with an LVEF between 30% and 35% who received an ICD during a heart failure hospitalization and similar patients in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) database (January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2009) with no ICD. The analysis was repeated in patients with an LVEF less than 30%. There were 3120 patients with an LVEF between 30% and 35% (816 in matched cohorts) and 4578 with an LVEF less than 30% (2176 in matched cohorts). Propensity score matching and Cox models were applied.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was all-cause mortality; data were obtained from Medicare claims through December 31, 2011.ResultsThere were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics of the matched groups (n = 408 for both groups). Among patients with an LVEF between 30% and 35%, there were 248 deaths in the ICD Registry group, within a median follow-up of 4.4 years (interquartile range, 2.7-4.9) and 249 deaths in the GWTG HF group, within a median follow-up of 2.9 years (interquartile range, 2.1-4.4). The risk of all-cause mortality in patients with an LVEF between 30% and 35% and an ICD was significantly lower than that in matched patients without an ICD (3-year mortality rates: 51.4% vs 55.0%; hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.69-0.99]; P = .04). Presence of an ICD also was associated with better survival in patients with an LVEF less than 30% (3-year mortality rates: 45.0% vs 57.6%; 634 and 660 total deaths; hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.65-0.81]; P < .001) (P = .20 for interaction).Conclusions and relevanceAmong Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for heart failure and with an LVEF between 30% and 35% and less than 30%, survival at 3 years was better in patients who received a prophylactic ICD than in comparable patients with no ICD. These findings support guideline recommendations to implant prophylactic ICDs in eligible patients with an LVEF of 35% or less.

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.

Dataset Information

Selection of patients eligible for implantable cardioverter defibrillator: beyond left ventricular ejection fraction.

Publications

Selection of patients eligible for implantable cardioverter defibrillator: beyond left ventricular ejection fraction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets