Dataset Information

Reassessment of clinical variables in cardiac resynchronization defibrillator patients at the time of first replacement: Death after replacement of CRT (DARC) score.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Cardiac resynchronization defibrillator (CRT-D) as primary prevention is known to reduce mortality. At the time of replacement, higher age and comorbidities may attenuate the benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the progression of comorbidities after implantation and their association with mortality following CRT-D generator replacement. In addition, a risk score was developed to identify patients at high risk for mortality after replacement.

Methods and results

We identified patients implanted with a primary prevention CRT-D (n = 648) who subsequently underwent elective generator replacement (n = 218) from two prospective ICD registries. The cohort consisted of 218 patients (median age: 70 years, male gender: 73%, mean left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]: 36 ± 11% at replacement). Median follow-up after the replacement was 4.2 years during which 64 patients (29%) died and 11 patients (5%) received appropriate ICD shocks. An increase in comorbidities was observed in 77 patients (35%). The 5-year mortality rate was 41% in patients with ≥2 comorbidities at the time of replacement. A risk score incorporating age, gender, LVEF, atrial fibrillation, anemia, chronic kidney disease, and history of appropriate ICD shocks at time of replacement accurately predicted 5-year mortality (C-statistic 0.829). Patients with a risk score of greater than 2.5 had excess mortality at 5-year postreplacement compared with patients with a risk score less than 1.5 (57% vs. 6%; p < .001).

Conclusion

A simple risk score accurately predicts 5-year mortality after replacement in CRT-D patients, as patients with a risk score of greater than 2.5 are at high risk of dying despite ICD protection.

SUBMITTER: Theuns DAMJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8251620 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundData regarding cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with multiple comorbidities are limited.ObjectivesThis study evaluated the association of multiple comorbidities with the benefits of CRT over implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) alone.MethodsWe examined 1,214 MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) study patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and 0, 1, 2, or ≥3 comorbidities, including renal dysfunction, hypertension (HTN), diabetes, coronary artery disease, history of atrial arrhythmias, history of ventricular arrhythmias, current smoking, and cerebrovascular accident. In an adjusted analysis, we analyzed risk of heart failure (HF) events or death by comorbidity group in all patients and in patients with CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) versus ICD. Then we examined percent change in left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume, LV ejection fraction, left atrial volume, and LV dyssynchrony at 1-year in CRT-D patients by comorbidity group.ResultsThere was an inverse relationship between comorbidity burden and improvements in LV end-systolic volume, LV end-diastolic volume, left ventricular ejection fraction, left atrial volume, and LV dyssynchrony. In an adjusted model, there was an increasing risk of death or nonfatal HF events with increasing comorbidity burden regardless of treatment group (p < 0.001). During a mean follow-up of 4.65 years, there was no interaction with respect to comorbidity burden and the benefit of CRT-D versus ICD only for death or nonfatal HF events (interaction p = 0.943). In the groups with greatest comorbidity burden (2 and ≥3), the absolute risk reduction associated with CRT-D over ICD alone appeared greater than that seen for groups with less comorbidity burden (0 and 1).ConclusionsDuring long-term follow-up of MADIT-CRT study patients with LBBB randomized to CRT-D, there were differences in HF or death risk and in the degree of reverse remodeling among comorbidity groups. However, the burden of comorbidity does not appear to compromise the clinical benefits of CRT-D compared with ICD alone.