Dataset Information

Clinical factors associated with baseline history of atrial fibrillation and subsequent clinical outcomes following initial implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequently present in patients with heart failure (HF) and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). This study aims to identify clinical factors associated with a baseline history of AF in ICD recipients, and compares subsequent clinical outcomes in those with and without a baseline history of AF.

Methods

We studied 566 consecutive first-time ICD recipients at an academic center between 2011 and 2018. Logistic regression multivariable analyses were used to identify clinical factors associated with a baseline history of AF at the time of ICD implant. Cox-proportional hazard regression models were constructed for multivariate analysis to examine associations between a baseline history of AF with subsequent clinical outcomes, including ICD therapies, HF readmission, and all-cause mortality.

Results

Of all patients, 201 (36%) had a baseline history of AF at the time of ICD implant. In multivariate analyses, clinical factors associated with a baseline history of AF included hypertension, valvular heart disease, body weight, PR interval, and serum creatinine level. After multivariate adjustment for potential confounders, a baseline history of AF was associated with an increased risk of anti-tachycardia pacing (HR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.19-2.85, P = .006), appropriate ICD shocks (HR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.05-3.09, P = .032), and inappropriate ICD shocks (HR = 3.72, 95% CI = 1.7-7.77, P = .0001), but not other adverse outcomes.

Conclusion

Among first-time ICD recipients, specific clinical characteristics were associated with a baseline history of AF at the time of ICD implant. After adjustment for potential confounders, a baseline history of AF was associated with a higher risk of all ICD therapies in follow-up.

SUBMITTER: Giancaterino S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7299732 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Current approaches fail to separate patients at high versus low risk for ventricular arrhythmias owing to overreliance on a snapshot left ventricular ejection fraction measure. We used statistical machine learning to identify important cardiac imaging and time-varying risk predictors. Methods and Results Three hundred eighty-two cardiomyopathy patients (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) underwent cardiac magnetic resonance before primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator insertion. The primary end point was appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator discharge or sudden death. Patient characteristics; serum biomarkers of inflammation, neurohormonal status, and injury; and cardiac magnetic resonance-measured left ventricle and left atrial indices and myocardial scar burden were assessed at baseline. Time-varying covariates comprised interval heart failure hospitalizations and left ventricular ejection fractions. A random forest statistical method for survival, longitudinal, and multivariable outcomes incorporating baseline and time-varying variables was compared with (1) Seattle Heart Failure model scores and (2) random forest survival and Cox regression models incorporating baseline characteristics with and without imaging variables. Age averaged 57±13 years with 28% women, 66% white, 51% ischemic, and follow-up time of 5.9±2.3 years. The primary end point (n=75) occurred at 3.3±2.4 years. Random forest statistical method for survival, longitudinal, and multivariable outcomes with baseline and time-varying predictors had the highest area under the receiver operating curve, median 0.88 (95% CI, 0.75-0.96). Top predictors comprised heart failure hospitalization, left ventricle scar, left ventricle and left atrial volumes, left atrial function, and interleukin-6 level; heart failure accounted for 67% of the variation explained by the prediction, imaging 27%, and interleukin-6 2%. Serial left ventricular ejection fraction was not a significant predictor. Conclusions Hospitalization for heart failure and baseline cardiac metrics substantially improve ventricular arrhythmic risk prediction.

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) 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:Randomized clinical trials have shown that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy saves lives. Whether the survival of patients who received an ICD in primary prevention clinical trials differs from that of trial-eligible patients receiving a primary prevention ICD in clinical practice is unknown.To determine whether trial-eligible patients who received a primary prevention ICD as documented in a large national registry have a survival rate that differs from the survival rate of similar patients who received an ICD in the 2 largest primary prevention clinical trials, MADIT-II (n = 742) and SCD-HeFT (n = 829).Retrospective analysis of data for patients enrolled in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007, meeting the MADIT-II criteria (2464 propensity score-matched patients) or the SCD-HeFT criteria (3352 propensity score-matched patients). Mortality data for the registry patients were collected through December 31, 2009.Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare mortality from any cause.The median follow-up time in MADIT-II, SCD-HeFT, and the ICD Registry was 19.5, 46.1, and 35.2 months, respectively. Compared with patients enrolled in the clinical trials, patients in the ICD Registry were significantly older and had a higher burden of comorbidities. In the matched cohorts, there was no significant difference in survival between MADIT-II-like patients in the registry and MADIT-II patients randomized to receive an ICD (2-year mortality rates: 13.9% and 15.6%, respectively; adjusted ICD Registry vs trial hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.31; P = .62). Likewise, the survival among SCD-HeFT-like patients in the registry was not significantly different from survival among patients randomized to receive ICD therapy in SCD-HeFT (3-year mortality rates: 17.3% and 17.4%, respectively; adjusted registry vs trial hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.97-1.38; P = .11).There was no significant difference in survival between clinical trial patients randomized to receive an ICD and a similar group of clinical registry patients who received a primary prevention ICD. Our findings support the continued use of primary prevention ICDs in similar patients seen in clinical practice.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000609.