Dataset Information

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy use in New Zealand (ANZACS-QI 33).

ABSTRACT: Background:The ANZACS-QI Cardiac Implanted Device Registry (ANZACS-QI DEVICE) collects nationwide data on cardiac implantable electronic devices in New Zealand (NZ). We used the registry to describe contemporary NZ use of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods:All ICD and CRT Pacemaker implants recorded in ANZACS-QI DEVICE between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2017 were analyzed. Results:Of 1579 ICD implants, 1152 (73.0%) were new implants, including 49.0% for primary prevention and 51.0% for secondary prevention. In both groups, median age was 62 years and patients were predominantly male (81.4% and 79.2%, respectively). Most patients receiving a primary prevention ICD had a history of clinical heart failure (80.4%), NYHA class II-III symptoms (77.1%) and LVEF ?35% (96.9%). In the secondary prevention ICD cohort, 88.4% were for sustained ventricular tachycardia or survived cardiac arrest from ventricular arrhythmia. Compared to primary prevention CRT Defibrillators (n = 155), those receiving CRT Pacemakers (n = 175) were older (median age 74 vs 66 years) and more likely to be female (38.3% vs 19.4%). Of the 427 (27.0%) ICD replacements (mean duration 6.3 years), 46.6% had received appropriate device therapy while 17.8% received inappropriate therapy. The ICD implant rate was 119 per million population with regional variation in implant rates, ratio of primary prevention ICD implants, and selection of CRT modality. Conclusion:In contemporary NZ practice three-quarters of ICD implants were new implants, of which half were for primary prevention. The majority met current guideline indications. Patients receiving CRT pacemaker were older and more likely to be female.

SUBMITTER: Foo FS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7011834 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy use in New Zealand (ANZACS-QI 33).

Foo Fang Shawn FS Lee Mildred M Looi Khang-Li KL Larsen Peter P Clare Geoffrey C GC Heaven David D Stiles Martin K MK Voss Jamie J Boddington Dean D Jackson Rod R Kerr Andrew J AJ

Journal of arrhythmia 20191006 1

<h4>Background</h4>The ANZACS-QI Cardiac Implanted Device Registry (ANZACS-QI DEVICE) collects nationwide data on cardiac implantable electronic devices in New Zealand (NZ). We used the registry to describe contemporary NZ use of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).<h4>Methods</h4>All ICD and CRT Pacemaker implants recorded in ANZACS-QI DEVICE between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2017 were analyzed.<h4>Results</h4>Of 1579 ICD implants, 1152 ...[more]

PMID: 32071634

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:ImportanceCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) provides significant reduction in morbidity and mortality in select patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and specific parameters of electrocardiographic evidence of dyssynchrony. Relative to the 2012 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society guideline update for patient selection, little is known about the contemporary use of CRT in the United States.ObjectiveTo describe the use of CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) in the period around guideline revision.Design, setting, and participantsAll patients undergoing new CRT-D implantations in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2015, at 1710 participating hospitals were identified for this population-based study. Rates of CRT-D implantation that were concordant and discordant with the 2012 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society update of the 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy were determined. Analysis began in January 2012.Main outcomes and measuresIncrease in guideline-concordant CRT-D implantation.ResultsAmong 135 253 patients undergoing initial CRT-D implantation, 88 923 were included in the study cohort, of which 73 859 implants (83.1%) were guideline concordant. The proportion of guideline-concordant devices increased from 81.2% (16 710 of 20 481) in 2012 to 84.2% (20 515 of 24 356) in 2015 (P for trend < .001). Significant clustering was noted with 33% (565 of 1710) of hospitals accounting for greater than 70% (10 545 of 15 065) of guideline-discordant CRT-D implants. Conduction abnormalities, in particular, underlying right bundle branch block (3597 [23.9%] vs 7425 [10.1%]; P < .001) and nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay (3341 [22.2%] vs 4769 [6.5%]; P < .001) were more common in those who received guideline-discordant devices.Conclusions and relevanceRates of guideline-concordant CRT-D implantation increased during the study. The major fraction of guideline-discordant implants were clustered at a minority of hospitals. Conduction abnormalities, particularly non-left bundle branch block and nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay, correlated with guideline-discordant implants indicating continued opportunity for dissemination and understanding of guideline updates.

Project description:ImportanceFrequent right ventricular (RV) pacing can cause and exacerbate heart failure. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes among patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction who need frequent RV pacing, but the patterns of use of CRT vs dual chamber (DC) devices and the associated outcomes among these patients in clinical practice is not known.ObjectiveTo assess outcomes, variability in use of device type, and trends in use of device type over time among patients undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation who were likely to require frequent RV pacing but who did not have a class I indication for CRT.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) ICD Registry. A total of 3100 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing first-time implantation of CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) or DC-ICD from 2010 to 2016 who had a class I or II guideline ventricular bradycardia pacing indication but not a class I indication for CRT were included. Data were analyzed from August 2018 to October 2019.ExposuresImplantation of a CRT-D or DC-ICD.Main outcomes and measuresAll-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and complications were ascertained from Medicare claims data. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and Fine-Gray models were used to evaluate 1-year mortality and heart failure hospitalization, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate 30-day and 90-day complications. All models accounted for clustering. The median odds ratio (MOR) was used to assess variability and represents the odds that a randomly selected patient receiving CRT-D at a hospital with high implant rates would receive CRT-D if they had been treated at a hospital with low CRT-D implant rates.ResultsA total of 3100 individuals were included. The mean (SD) age was 76.3 (6.4) years, and 2500 (80.6%) were men. The 1698 patients (54.7%) receiving CRT-D were more likely than those receiving DC-ICD to have third-degree atrioventricular block (828 [48.8%] vs 432 [30.8%]; P < .001), nonischemic cardiomyopathy (508 [29.9%] vs 255 [18.2%]; P < .001), and prior heart failure hospitalizations (703 [41.4%] vs 421 [30.0%]; P < .001). Following adjustment, CRT-D was associated with lower 1-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P = .001) and heart failure hospitalization (subdistribution HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.97; P = .02) and no difference in complications compared with DC-ICD. Hospital variation in use of CRT was present (MOR, 2.00), and the use of CRT in this cohort was higher over time (654 of 1351 [48.4%] in 2010 vs 362 of 594 [60.9%] in 2016; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of older patients in contemporary practice undergoing ICD implantation with a bradycardia pacing indication but without a class I indication for CRT, CRT-D was associated with better outcomes compared with DC devices. Variability in use of device type was observed, and the rate of CRT implantation increased over time.

Dataset Information

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy use in New Zealand (ANZACS-QI 33).

Publications

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy use in New Zealand (ANZACS-QI 33).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure