Dataset Information

Facility-Level Variation and Clinical Outcomes in Use of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With and Without an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Kramer DB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6688862 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Facility-Level Variation and Clinical Outcomes in Use of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With and Without an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator.

Kramer Daniel B DB Normand Sharon-Lise T ST Volya Rita R Hatfield Laura A LA

Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes 20181201 12

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods and results</h4>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 r ...[more]

PMID: 30562069

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: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

Facility-Level Variation and Clinical Outcomes in Use of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With and Without an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator.

Publications

Facility-Level Variation and Clinical Outcomes in Use of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With and Without an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets