Search

Aims: Patients with heart failure usually have several other medical conditions that might alter the effects of interventions. We investigated whether the burden of comorbidity modified the clinical response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods and results: Original patient‐level data from eight randomized trials exploring the effects of CRT versus no CRT were pooled (BLOCK‐HF, MIRACLE, MIRACLE‐ICD, MIRACLE‐ICD II, RAFT, COMPANION, MADIT‐CRT and REVERSE). A prior history of the following comorbidities was considered: episodic or persistent atrial fibrillation (n = 920), coronary artery disease (n = 3732), diabetes (n = 2171), and hypertension (n = 3353). Patients were classified into three groups based on the number of comorbidities: 0, 1–2, or ≥3. The outcomes of interest were time to all‐cause mortality and time to the composite outcome of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) or all‐cause mortality. Outcomes were evaluated within each comorbidity group using a Bayesian hierarchical Weibull survival regression model. Of 6324 patients, 970 (15%) had no comorbidities, 4052 (64%) had 1–2 and 1302 (21%) had ≥3 comorbidities. The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for CRT versus no CRT for all‐cause mortality in the overall cohort was 0.79 (95% credible interval [CI] 0.68–0.93) (p = 0.010); for no comorbidities the aHR was 0.54 (95% CI 0.34–0.86), for 1–2 comorbidities was 0.81 (95% CI 0.67–0.97) and for ≥3 comorbidities was 0.83 (95% CI 0.64–1.07) (no significant interaction between CRT and comorbidity burden: p = 0.13). For the endpoint of HFH or all‐cause mortality, the aHR for the overall cohort was 0.74 (95% CI 0.65–0.84) (p = 0.001), for no comorbidities was 0.69 (95% CI 0.50–0.94), for 1–2 comorbidities was 0.77 (95% CI 0.66–0.90) and for ≥3 comorbidities was 0.68 (95% CI 0.55–0.82) (no significant interaction between CRT and comorbidity burden: p = 0.081). Conclusion: In a meta‐analysis of patient‐level data from eight major trials, the totality of evidence suggests that CRT reduces HFH and/or all‐cause mortality even when several comorbid diseases are present. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT00271154, NCT00251251, NCT00267098, NCT00180271. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundClinical trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention enrolled a limited number of women. We sought to examine clinical practice data to compare survival rates among women with heart failure with or without a primary prevention ICD.Methods and resultsWe linked data from 264 US hospitals included in the Get With The Guidelines for Heart Failure registry with data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. From these sources, we propensity score matched 430 women with heart failure who received a primary prevention ICD to 430 women who did not; we further adjusted using a Cox proportional hazards model. Median follow-up was 3.4 and 3.0 years. For comparison, we matched 859 men receiving an ICD with 859 who did not; median follow-up was 3.9 versus 2.9 years. In the matched cohorts, an ICD was associated with similarly better survival in women (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.92; P=0.003) and men (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.87 P

BackgroundSudden cardiac death is the leading cause of death among end-stage kidney disease patients (ESKD) on dialysis, but the benefit of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in this population is uncertain. We conducted this investigation to compare the mortality of dialysis patients receiving a primary prevention ICD with matched controls.MethodsWe used data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's ICD Registry to select dialysis patients who received a primary prevention ICD, and the Get with the Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry to select a comparator cohort. We matched ICD recipients and no-ICD patients using propensity score techniques to reduce confounding, and overall survival was compared between groups.ResultsWe identified 108 dialysis patients receiving primary prevention ICDs and 195 comparable dialysis patients without ICDs. One year (3-year) mortality was 42.2% (68.8%) in the ICD registry cohort compared with 38.1% (75.7%) in the control cohort. There was no significant survival advantage associated with ICD [hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-1.13, log-rank P = 0.29]. After propensity matching, our analysis included 86 ICD patients and 86 matched controls. Comparing the propensity-matched cohorts, 1 year (3 years) mortality was 43.4% (74.0%) in the ICD cohort and 39.7% (76.6%) in the control cohort; there was no significant difference in mortality outcome between groups (HR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.67-1.31, log-rank P = 0.71).ConclusionsWe did not observe a significant association between primary prevention ICDs and reduced mortality among ESKD patients receiving dialysis. Consideration of the potential risks and benefits of ICD implantation in these patients should be undertaken while awaiting the results of definitive clinical trials.

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess the benefit of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in women.BackgroundClinical trials of primary prevention ICDs enrolled a limited number of women.MethodsUsing a propensity score method, we matched 490 women ≥65 years of age who received an ICD during a hospitalization for heart failure in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2007, to 490 ICD-eligible women without an ICD hospitalized for heart failure in the Get With The Guidelines for Heart Failure database from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2009. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality obtained from the Medicare Claims Database. An identical analysis was conducted in men.ResultsMedian follow-up for patients with an ICD was 4.6 years versus 3.2 years for patients with no ICD. Compared with women with no ICD, those with an ICD were younger and less frequently white. In the matched cohorts, the survival of women with an ICD was significantly longer than that of women without an ICD (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 0.95; p = 0.013). Similarly, men with an ICD had longer survival than men without an ICD (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.73, 95% confidence interval: 0.65 to 0.83; p < 0.0001). There was no interaction between sex and the presence of an ICD with respect to survival (p = 0.44).ConclusionsAmong older women with left ventricular dysfunction, a primary prevention ICD was associated with a significant survival benefit that was nearly identical to that seen in men. These findings support the use of primary prevention ICDs in eligible patients regardless of sex.

ImportanceClinical trials of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have included a minority of patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 30% and 35%. Because a large number of ICDs in the United States are implanted in such patients, it is important to study survival associated with this therapy.ObjectiveTo characterize patients with LVEF between 30% and 35% and compare the survival of those with and without ICDs.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD registry (January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2007) with an LVEF between 30% and 35% who received an ICD during a heart failure hospitalization and similar patients in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) database (January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2009) with no ICD. The analysis was repeated in patients with an LVEF less than 30%. There were 3120 patients with an LVEF between 30% and 35% (816 in matched cohorts) and 4578 with an LVEF less than 30% (2176 in matched cohorts). Propensity score matching and Cox models were applied.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was all-cause mortality; data were obtained from Medicare claims through December 31, 2011.ResultsThere were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics of the matched groups (n = 408 for both groups). Among patients with an LVEF between 30% and 35%, there were 248 deaths in the ICD Registry group, within a median follow-up of 4.4 years (interquartile range, 2.7-4.9) and 249 deaths in the GWTG HF group, within a median follow-up of 2.9 years (interquartile range, 2.1-4.4). The risk of all-cause mortality in patients with an LVEF between 30% and 35% and an ICD was significantly lower than that in matched patients without an ICD (3-year mortality rates: 51.4% vs 55.0%; hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.69-0.99]; P = .04). Presence of an ICD also was associated with better survival in patients with an LVEF less than 30% (3-year mortality rates: 45.0% vs 57.6%; 634 and 660 total deaths; hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.65-0.81]; P

The CDC recommends routine voluntary HIV testing of all patients 13-64 years of age. Despite this recommendation, HIV testing rates are low even among those at identifiable risk, and many patients do not return to receive their results.To examine the costs and benefits of strategies to improve HIV testing and receipt of results.Cost-effectiveness analysis based on a Markov model. Acceptance of testing, return rates, and related costs were derived from a randomized trial of 251 patients; long-term costs and health outcomes were derived from the literature.Primary-care patients with unknown HIV status.Comparison of three intervention models for HIV counseling and testing: Model A = traditional HIV counseling and testing; Model B = nurse-initiated routine screening with traditional HIV testing and counseling; Model C = nurse-initiated routine screening with rapid HIV testing and streamlined counseling.Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness.Without consideration of the benefit from reduced HIV transmission, Model A resulted in per-patient lifetime discounted costs of $48,650 and benefits of 16.271 QALYs. Model B increased lifetime costs by $53 and benefits by 0.0013 QALYs (corresponding to 0.48 quality-adjusted life days). Model C cost $66 more than Model A with an increase of 0.0018 QALYs (0.66 quality-adjusted life days) and an incremental cost-effectiveness of $36,390/QALY. When we included the benefit from reduced HIV transmission, Model C cost $10,660/QALY relative to Model A. The cost-effectiveness of Model C was robust in sensitivity analyses.In a primary-care population, nurse-initiated routine screening with rapid HIV testing and streamlined counseling increased rates of testing and receipt of test results and was cost-effective compared with traditional HIV testing strategies.