Dataset Information

Changes in Follow-Up Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Associated With Outcomes in Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Device Recipients.

ABSTRACT: Heart failure patients with primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) may experience an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) over time. However, it is unclear how LVEF improvement affects subsequent risk for mortality and sudden cardiac death.This study sought to assess changes in LVEF after ICD implantation and the implication of these changes on subsequent mortality and ICD shocks.We conducted a prospective cohort study of 538 patients with repeated LVEF assessments after ICD implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. The primary endpoint was appropriate ICD shock defined as a shock for ventricular tachyarrhythmias. The secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality.Over a mean follow-up of 4.9 years, LVEF decreased in 13.0%, improved in 40.0%, and was unchanged in 47.0% of the patients. In the multivariate Cox models comparing patients with an improved LVEF with those with an unchanged LVEF, the hazard ratios were 0.33 (95% confidence interval: 0.18 to 0.59) for mortality and 0.29 (95% confidence interval: 0.11 to 0.78) for appropriate shock. During follow-up, 25% of patients showed an improvement in LVEF to >35% and their risk of appropriate shock decreased but was not eliminated.Among primary prevention ICD patients, 40.0% had an improved LVEF during follow-up and 25% had LVEF improved to >35%. Changes in LVEF were inversely associated with all-cause mortality and appropriate shocks for ventricular tachyarrhythmias. In patients whose follow-up LVEF improved to >35%, the risk of an appropriate shock remained but was markedly decreased.

SUBMITTER: Zhang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4522701 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Changes in Follow-Up Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Associated With Outcomes in Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Device Recipients.

Zhang Yiyi Y Guallar Eliseo E Blasco-Colmenares Elena E Butcher Barbara B Norgard Sanaz S Nauffal Victor V Marine Joseph E JE Eldadah Zayd Z Dickfeld Timm T Ellenbogen Kenneth A KA Tomaselli Gordon F GF Cheng Alan A

Journal of the American College of Cardiology 20150801 5

<h4>Background</h4>Heart failure patients with primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) may experience an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) over time. However, it is unclear how LVEF improvement affects subsequent risk for mortality and sudden cardiac death.<h4>Objectives</h4>This study sought to assess changes in LVEF after ICD implantation and the implication of these changes on subsequent mortality and ICD shocks.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a pr ...[more]

PMID: 26227190

Similar Datasets

Project description:Clinical 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.To characterize patients with LVEF between 30% and 35% and compare the survival of those with and without ICDs.Retrospective 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.The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; data were obtained from Medicare claims through December 31, 2011.There 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).Among 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

Changes in Follow-Up Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Associated With Outcomes in Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Device Recipients.

Publications

Changes in Follow-Up Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Associated With Outcomes in Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Device Recipients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets