Dataset Information

Survival of patients receiving a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in clinical practice vs clinical trials.

ABSTRACT: Randomized clinical trials have shown that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy saves lives. Whether the survival of patients who received an ICD in primary prevention clinical trials differs from that of trial-eligible patients receiving a primary prevention ICD in clinical practice is unknown.To determine whether trial-eligible patients who received a primary prevention ICD as documented in a large national registry have a survival rate that differs from the survival rate of similar patients who received an ICD in the 2 largest primary prevention clinical trials, MADIT-II (n = 742) and SCD-HeFT (n = 829).Retrospective analysis of data for patients enrolled in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007, meeting the MADIT-II criteria (2464 propensity score-matched patients) or the SCD-HeFT criteria (3352 propensity score-matched patients). Mortality data for the registry patients were collected through December 31, 2009.Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare mortality from any cause.The median follow-up time in MADIT-II, SCD-HeFT, and the ICD Registry was 19.5, 46.1, and 35.2 months, respectively. Compared with patients enrolled in the clinical trials, patients in the ICD Registry were significantly older and had a higher burden of comorbidities. In the matched cohorts, there was no significant difference in survival between MADIT-II-like patients in the registry and MADIT-II patients randomized to receive an ICD (2-year mortality rates: 13.9% and 15.6%, respectively; adjusted ICD Registry vs trial hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.31; P = .62). Likewise, the survival among SCD-HeFT-like patients in the registry was not significantly different from survival among patients randomized to receive ICD therapy in SCD-HeFT (3-year mortality rates: 17.3% and 17.4%, respectively; adjusted registry vs trial hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.97-1.38; P = .11).There was no significant difference in survival between clinical trial patients randomized to receive an ICD and a similar group of clinical registry patients who received a primary prevention ICD. Our findings support the continued use of primary prevention ICDs in similar patients seen in clinical practice.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000609.

SUBMITTER: Al-Khatib SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3638257 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Survival of patients receiving a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in clinical practice vs clinical trials.

Al-Khatib Sana M SM Hellkamp Anne A Bardy Gust H GH Hammill Stephen S Hall W Jackson WJ Mark Daniel B DB Anstrom Kevin J KJ Curtis Jeptha J Al-Khalidi Hussein H Curtis Lesley H LH Heidenreich Paul P Peterson Eric D ED Sanders Gillian G Clapp-Channing Nancy N Lee Kerry L KL Moss Arthur J AJ

JAMA 20130101 1

<h4>Importance</h4>Randomized clinical trials have shown that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy saves lives. Whether the survival of patients who received an ICD in primary prevention clinical trials differs from that of trial-eligible patients receiving a primary prevention ICD in clinical practice is unknown.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether trial-eligible patients who received a primary prevention ICD as documented in a large national registry have a survival rate that ...[more]

PMID: 23280225

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere are conflicting data on the impact of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks on subsequent mortality.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine whether the arrhythmic substrate leading to ICD therapy or the therapy itself increases mortality.MethodsThe study cohort included 5,516 ICD recipients who were enrolled in 5 landmark ICD trials (MADIT-II, MADIT-RISK, MADIT-CRT, MADIT-RIT, RAID). The authors evaluated the association of device therapy with subsequent mortality in 4 separate time-dependent models: model I, type of ICD therapy; model II, type of arrhythmia for which ICD therapy was delivered; model III, combined assessment of all arrhythmia and therapy types during follow-up; and model IV, incremental risk associated with repeated ICD shocks.ResultsWhen analyzed by the type of ICD therapy (model I), a first appropriate ICD shock was associated with increased risk of subsequent mortality with or without concomitant occurrence of inappropriate shock during follow-up (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.78 and 2.31; p < 0.001 and p = 0.12), whereas inappropriate shock alone was not associated with mortality risk (HR: 1.23; p = 0.42). Similarly, ICD therapy for ventricular tachycardia (VT) ≥200 beats/min or ventricular fibrillation (VF) (model II) was associated with increased risk of death with or without concomitant therapy for VT <200 beats/min (HRs: 2.25 and 2.62; both p < 0.001), whereas appropriate therapy for VT <200 beats/min or inappropriate therapy (regardless of etiology) did not reach statistical significance (all p > 0.10). Combined assessment of all therapy and arrhythmia types during follow-up (model III) showed that appropriate ICD shocks for VF, shocks for fast VT (≥200 beats/min) without prior antitachycardia pacing (ATP), as well as shocks for fast VT delivered after failed ATP, were associated with the highest risk of subsequent death (HR: all >2.8; p < 0.001). Finally, 2 or more ICD appropriate shocks were not associated with incremental risk to the first appropriate ICD shock (model IV).ConclusionThe combined data from 5 landmark ICD trials suggest that the underlying arrhythmic substrate rather than the ICD therapy is the more important determinant of mortality in ICD recipients.

Project description:Background One third of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients receive appropriate therapy, but all remain at risk of defibrillator complications. Information on these complications in contemporary cohorts is limited. This study assessed complications and their risk factors after defibrillator implantation in a Dutch nationwide prospective registry cohort and forecasts the potential reduction in complications under distinct scenarios of updated indication criteria. Methods and Results Complications in a prospective multicenter registry cohort of 1442 primary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implant patients were classified as major or minor. The potential for reducing complications was derived from a newly developed prediction model of appropriate therapy to identify patients with a low probability of benefitting from the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. During a follow-up of 2.2 years (interquartile range, 2.0-2.6 years), 228 complications occurred in 195 patients (13.6%), with 113 patients (7.8%) experiencing at least one major complication. Most common ones were lead related (n=93) and infection (n=18). Minor complications occurred in 6.8% of patients, with lead-related (n=47) and pocket-related (n=40) complications as the most prevailing ones. A surgical reintervention or additional hospitalization was required in 53% or 61% of complications, respectively. Complications were strongly associated with device type. Application of stricter implant indication results in a comparable proportional reduction of (major) complications. Conclusions One in 13 patients experiences at least one major implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-related complication, and many patients undergo a surgical reintervention. Complications are related to defibrillator implantations, and these should be discussed with the patient. Stricter implant indication criteria and careful selection of device type implanted may have significant clinical and financial benefits.

Project description:BackgroundThe impact of patient age on the risks of death or rehospitalization after primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement is uncertain.Methods and resultsData from 5 major ICD trials were merged: the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial I (MADIT-I), the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT), the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT-II), the Defibrillators in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy Treatment Evaluation Trial (DEFINITE), and the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT). Median age at enrollment was 62 (interquartile range 53-70) years. Compared with their younger counterparts, older patients had a greater burden of comorbid illness. In unadjusted exploratory analyses, ICD recipients were less likely to die than nonrecipients in all age groups: among patients aged <55 years: hazard ratio 0.48, 95% posterior credible interval 0.33 to 0.69; among patients aged 55 to 64 years: hazard ratio 0.69, 95% posterior credible interval 0.53 to 0.90; among patients aged 65 to 74 years: hazard ratio 0.67, 95% posterior credible interval, 0.53 to 0.85; and among patients aged ≥75 years: hazard ratio 0.54, 95% posterior credible interval 0.37 to 0.78. Sample sizes were limited among patients aged ≥75 years. In adjusted Bayesian-Weibull modeling, point estimates indicate ICD efficacy persists but is attenuated with increasing age. There was evidence of an interaction between age and ICD treatment on survival (two-sided posterior tail probability of no interaction <0.01). Using an adjusted Bayesian logistic regression model, there was no evidence of an interaction between age and ICD treatment on rehospitalization (two-sided posterior tail probability of no interaction 0.44).ConclusionsIn this analysis, the survival benefit of the ICD exists but is attenuated with increasing age. The latter finding may be because of the higher burden of comorbid illness, competing causes of death, or limited sample size of older patients. There was no evidence that age modifies the association between ICD treatment and rehospitalization.

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

Survival of patients receiving a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in clinical practice vs clinical trials.

Publications

Survival of patients receiving a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in clinical practice vs clinical trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets