Dataset Information

Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) Therapy in Women-Data From a Multicenter French Registry.

ABSTRACT: There are limited data describing sex specificities regarding implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in the real-world European setting.Using a large multicenter cohort of consecutive patients referred for ICD implantation for primary prevention (2002-2012), in ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy, we examined the sex differences in subjects' characteristics and outcomes. Of 5539 patients, only 837 (15.1%) were women and 53.8% received cardiac resynchronization therapy. Compared to men, women presented a significantly higher proportion of nonischemic cardiomyopathy (60.2% versus 36.2%, P<0.001), wider QRS complex width (QRS >120 ms: 74.6% versus 68.5%, P=0.003), higher New York Heart Association functional class (≥III in 54.2%♀ versus 47.8%♂, P=0.014), and lower prevalence of atrial fibrillation (18.7% versus 24.9%, P<0.001). During a 16 786 patient-years follow-up, overall, fewer appropriate therapies were observed in women (hazard ratio=0.59, 95% CI 0.45-0.76; P<0.001). By contrast, no sex-specific interaction was observed for inappropriate shocks (odds ratio ♀=0.84, 95% CI 0.50-1.39, P=0.492), early complications (odds ratio=1.00, 95% CI 0.75-1.32, P=0.992), and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio=0.87 95% CI 0.66-1.15, P=0.324). Analysis of sex-by- cardiac resynchronization therapy interaction shows than female cardiac resynchronization therapy recipients experienced fewer appropriate therapies than men (hazard ratio=0.62, 95% CI 0.50-0.77; P<0.001) and lower mortality (hazard ratio=0.68, 95% CI 0.47-0.97; P=0.034).In our real-life registry, women account for the minority of ICD recipients and presented with a different clinical profile. Whereas female cardiac resynchronization therapy recipients had a lower incidence of appropriate ICD therapies and all-cause death than their male counterparts, the observed rates of inappropriate shocks and early complications in all ICD recipients were comparable.URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT01992458.

SUBMITTER: Providencia R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4802475 | biostudies-other | 2016 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:AimsThe benefit of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is not uniform due to differences in the risk of life-threatening ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) and non-arrhythmic mortality. We aimed to develop an ICD benefit prediction score that integrates the competing risks.Methods and resultsThe study population comprised all 4531 patients enrolled in the MADIT trials. Best-subsets Fine and Gray regression analysis was used to develop prognostic models for VT (≥200 b.p.m.)/VF vs. non-arrhythmic mortality (defined as death without prior sustained VT/VF). Eight predictors of VT/VF (male, age < 75 years, prior non-sustained VT, heart rate > 75 b.p.m., systolic blood pressure < 140 mmHg, ejection fraction ≤ 25%, myocardial infarction, and atrialarrhythmia) and 7 predictors of non-arrhythmic mortality (age ≥ 75 years, diabetes mellitus, body mass index < 23 kg/m2, ejection fraction ≤ 25%, New York Heart Association ≥II, ICD vs. cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator, and atrial arrhythmia) were identified. The two scores were combined to create three MADIT-ICD benefit groups. In the highest benefit group, the 3-year predicted risk of VT/VF was three-fold higher than the risk of non-arrhythmic mortality (20% vs. 7%, P < 0.001). In the intermediate benefit group, the difference in the corresponding predicted risks was attenuated (15% vs. 9%, P < 0.01). In the lowest benefit group, the 3-year predicted risk of VT/VF was similar to the risk of non-arrhythmic mortality (11% vs. 12%, P = 0.41). A personalized ICD benefit score was developed based on the distribution of the two competing risks scores in the study population (https://is.gd/madit). Internal and external validation confirmed model stability.ConclusionsWe propose the novel MADIT-ICD benefit score that predicts the likelihood of prophylactic ICD benefit through personalized assessment of the risk of VT/VF weighed against the risk of non-arrhythmic mortality.

Dataset Information

Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) Therapy in Women-Data From a Multicenter French Registry.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure