Dataset Information

Effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantable cardioverter defibrillator versus cardiac resynchronization therapy with pacemaker on mortality in heart failure patients: results of a high-volume, single-centre experience.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

There are limited and contradictory data on the effects of CRT with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (CRT-D) on mortality as compared with CRT with pacemaker (CRT-P).

Methods and results

We evaluated the long-term outcome of patients implanted with a CRT-D or CRT-P device in our high-volume single-centre experience. Data on all-cause mortality were derived from clinic visits and the Hungarian National Healthcare Fund Death Registry. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and multivariate Cox regression models were used to evaluate all-cause mortality in patients with CRT-D vs. CRT-P, stratified by the aetiology of cardiomyopathy. From 2000 to 2011, 1122 CRT devices, 693 CRT-P (LVEF 28.2?±?7.4%) and 429 CRT-D (LVEF 27.6?±?6.4%), were implanted at our centre. During the median follow-up of 28 months, 379 patients died from any cause, 250 patients (36%) with an implanted CRT-P and 129 patients (30%) with an implanted CRT-D. There was no evidence of mortality benefit in patients implanted with a CRT-D compared with a CRT-P in the total cohort [hazard ratio (HR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-1.32, P?=?0.884]. In patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy, CRT-D treatment was associated with a significant 30% risk reduction in all-cause mortality compared with an implanted CRT-P (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51-0.97, P?=?0.03). In non-ischaemic patients, there was no mortality benefit of CRT-D over CRT-P (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73-1.32, P?=?0.894, interaction P-value?=?0.15).

Conclusions

In heart failure patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy, CRT-D was associated with a mortality benefit compared with CRT-P, but no benefit of CRT-D over CRT-P in mortality was observed in non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy.

SUBMITTER: Kutyifa V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4309510 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantable cardioverter defibrillator versus cardiac resynchronization therapy with pacemaker on mortality in heart failure patients: results of a high-volume, single-centre experience.

Kutyifa Valentina V Geller Laszlo L Bogyi Peter P Zima Endre E Aktas Mehmet K MK Ozcan Emin Evren EE Becker David D Nagy Vivien Klaudia VK Kosztin Annamaria A Szilagyi Szabolcs S Merkely Bela B

European journal of heart failure 20141107 12

<h4>Aims</h4>There are limited and contradictory data on the effects of CRT with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (CRT-D) on mortality as compared with CRT with pacemaker (CRT-P).<h4>Methods and results</h4>We evaluated the long-term outcome of patients implanted with a CRT-D or CRT-P device in our high-volume single-centre experience. Data on all-cause mortality were derived from clinic visits and the Hungarian National Healthcare Fund Death Registry. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and mu ...[more]

PMID: 25379962

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Little is known about real-world facility-level preferences for cardiac resynchronization therapy devices with (CRT-D) and without (CRT-P) defibrillator backup. We quantify this variation at the facility level and exploit this variation to compare outcomes of patients receiving these 2 devices. METHODS AND RESULTS:Claims data from fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries were used to identify new CRT-P and CRT-D implants, 2006 to 2012. We modeled factors associated with receipt of each device, and compared mortality, hospitalizations, and reoperations for patients receiving each using both logistic regression and instrumental variable analysis to account for confounding. Among 71 459 device recipients (CRT-P, 11 925; CRT-D, 59 534; 31% women), CRT-P recipients were older, more likely to be women, and had more comorbidities. Variation in device selection among facilities was substantial: After adjustment for patient characteristics, the odds of receiving a CRT-P (versus CRT-D) device were 7.6× higher for a patient treated at a facility in the highest CRT-P use quartile versus a facility in the lowest CRT-P use quartile. Logistic modeling suggested a survival advantage for CRT-D devices but with falsification end points indicating residual confounding. By contrast, in the instrumental variable analysis using facility variability as the proposed instrument, clinical characteristics and falsification end points were well balanced, and 1-year mortality in patients who received CRT-P versus CRT-D implants did not differ, while CRT-P patients had a lower probability of hospitalizations and reoperations in the year following implant. CONCLUSIONS:CRT-P versus CRT-D selection varies substantially among facilities, adjusted for clinical factors. After instrumental variable adjustment for clinical covariates and facility preference, survival was no different between the devices. Therefore, CRT-P may be preferred for Medicare beneficiaries considering new CRT implantation.

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: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.

Dataset Information

Effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantable cardioverter defibrillator versus cardiac resynchronization therapy with pacemaker on mortality in heart failure patients: results of a high-volume, single-centre experience.

Aims

Methods and results

Conclusions

Publications

Effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantable cardioverter defibrillator versus cardiac resynchronization therapy with pacemaker on mortality in heart failure patients: results of a high-volume, single-centre experience.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets