Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Primary Prevention in Women.

ABSTRACT: Clinical trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention enrolled a limited number of women. We sought to examine clinical practice data to compare survival rates among women with heart failure with or without a primary prevention ICD.We linked data from 264 US hospitals included in the Get With The Guidelines for Heart Failure registry with data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. From these sources, we propensity score matched 430 women with heart failure who received a primary prevention ICD to 430 women who did not; we further adjusted using a Cox proportional hazards model. Median follow-up was 3.4 and 3.0 years. For comparison, we matched 859 men receiving an ICD with 859 who did not; median follow-up was 3.9 versus 2.9 years. In the matched cohorts, an ICD was associated with similarly better survival in women (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.92; P=0.003) and men (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.87 P<0.001). There was no interaction between sex and presence of an ICD with respect to survival (P=0.79).Among patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, a primary prevention ICD was associated with a significant survival advantage among women and among men. These findings support guideline-directed use of primary prevention ICDs in eligible patients.

SUBMITTER: Zeitler EP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4712727 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Primary Prevention in Women.

Zeitler Emily P EP Hellkamp Anne S AS Schulte Phillip J PJ Fonarow Gregg C GC Hernandez Adrian F AF Peterson Eric D ED Sanders Gillian D GD Yancy Clyde W CW Al-Khatib Sana M SM

Circulation. Heart failure 20160101 1

<h4>Background</h4>Clinical trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention enrolled a limited number of women. We sought to examine clinical practice data to compare survival rates among women with heart failure with or without a primary prevention ICD.<h4>Methods and results</h4>We linked data from 264 US hospitals included in the Get With The Guidelines for Heart Failure registry with data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. From these sources, ...[more]

PMID: 26758365

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThe EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (EU-CERT-ICD), a prospective investigator-initiated, controlled cohort study, was conducted in 44 centres and 15 European countries. It aimed to assess current clinical effectiveness of primary prevention ICD therapy.Methods and resultsWe recruited 2327 patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and guideline indications for prophylactic ICD implantation. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Clinical characteristics, medications, resting, and 12-lead Holter electrocardiograms (ECGs) were documented at enrolment baseline. Baseline and follow-up (FU) data from 2247 patients were analysable, 1516 patients before first ICD implantation (ICD group) and 731 patients without ICD serving as controls. Multivariable models and propensity scoring for adjustment were used to compare the two groups for mortality. During mean FU of 2.4 ± 1.1 years, 342 deaths occurred (6.3%/years annualized mortality, 5.6%/years in the ICD group vs. 9.2%/years in controls), favouring ICD treatment [unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.682, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.537-0.865, P = 0.0016]. Multivariable mortality predictors included age, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association class <III, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Adjusted mortality associated with ICD vs. control was 27% lower (HR 0.731, 95% CI 0.569-0.938, P = 0.0140). Subgroup analyses indicated no ICD benefit in diabetics (adjusted HR = 0.945, P = 0.7797, P for interaction = 0.0887) or those aged ≥75 years (adjusted HR 1.063, P = 0.8206, P for interaction = 0.0902).ConclusionIn contemporary ICM/DCM patients (LVEF ≤35%, narrow QRS), primary prophylactic ICD treatment was associated with a 27% lower mortality after adjustment. There appear to be patients with less survival advantage, such as older patients or diabetics.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in selected patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction by delivering therapies (antitachycardia pacing or shocks) to terminate potentially lethal arrhythmias; inappropriate therapies also occur. We assessed device therapies among adults receiving primary prevention ICDs in 7 healthcare systems. METHODS AND RESULTS:We linked medical record data, adjudicated device therapies, and the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. Survival analysis evaluated therapy probability and predictors after ICD implant from 2006 to 2009, with attention to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups: left ventricular ejection fraction, 31% to 35%; nonischemic cardiomyopathy <9 months' duration; and New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator. Among 2540 patients, 35% were <65 years old, 26% were women, and 59% were white. During 27 (median) months, 738 (29%) received ?1 therapy. Three-year therapy risk was 36% (appropriate, 24%; inappropriate, 12%). Appropriate therapy was more common in men (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-2.35). Inappropriate therapy was more common in patients with atrial fibrillation (adjusted HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.68-2.87), but less common among patients ?65 years old versus younger (adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.95) and in recent implants (eg, in 2009 versus 2006; adjusted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46-0.95). In Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development analysis, inappropriate therapy was less common with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator versus single chamber (adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.84); therapy risk did not otherwise differ for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups. CONCLUSIONS:In this community cohort of primary prevention patients receiving ICD, therapy delivery varied across demographic and clinical characteristics, but did not differ meaningfully for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups.

Project description:BackgroundConventional risk factors for sudden cardiac death (SCD) justify primary prevention through implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) patients. However, the positive predictive values for these conventional SCD risk factors are low. Left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO) and midventricular obstruction (MVO) are potential risk modifiers for SCD. The aims of this study were to evaluate whether an elevated intraventricular pressure gradient (IVPG), including LVOTO or MVO, is a potential risk modifier for SCD and ventricular arrhythmias requiring ICD interventions in addition to the conventional risk factors among HCM patients receiving ICDs for primary prevention.MethodsWe retrospectively studied 60 HCM patients who received ICDs for primary prevention. An elevated IVPG was defined as a peak instantaneous gradient ≥ 30 mmHg at rest, as detected by continuous-wave Doppler echocardiography. The main outcome was a composite of SCD and appropriate ICD interventions, which were defined as an antitachycardia pacing or shock therapy for ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the relationships between risk factors and the occurrence of SCD and appropriate ICD interventions.ResultsThirty patients met the criteria of elevated IVPG (50%). During the median follow-up period of 66 months, 2 patients experienced SCD, and 10 patients received appropriate ICD interventions. Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the incidence of the main outcome was higher in patients with an IVPG ≥ 30 mmHg than in those without an IVPG ≥ 30 mmHg (log-rank P = 0.03). There were no differences in the main outcome between patients with LVOTO and patients with MVO. The combination of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) and IVPG ≥ 30 mmHg was found to significantly increase the risk of the main outcome (HR 6.31, 95% CI 1.36-29.25, P = 0.02). Five patients experienced ICD implant-related complications.ConclusionsOur findings showed that a baseline IVPG ≥ 30 mmHg was associated with an increased risk of experiencing SCD or appropriate ICD interventions among HCM patients who received ICDs for primary prevention. Combined with NSVT, which is a conventional risk factor, a baseline IVPG ≥ 30 mmHg may be a potential modifier of SCD risk in HCM patients.

Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Primary Prevention in Women.

Publications

Comparative Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Primary Prevention in Women.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets