Search

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

Aims: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are key in the prevention of sudden cardiac death, but outcomes may vary by type of device or programming [single chamber (SC) vs. dual chamber (DC)] in patients without a bradycardia pacing indication. We sought to meta-analyse patient outcomes of randomized trials of SC vs. DC devices or programming.Methods and results: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane trials databases for relevant studies excluding those published before 2000, involving children, or not available in English. Endpoints included mortality, inappropriate ICD therapies, and implant complications. Endpoints with at least three reporting studies were meta-analysed. We identified eight studies meeting inclusion criteria representing 2087 patients with 16.1 months mean follow-up. Mean age was 62.7 years (SD 1.92); in six studies reporting sex, most patients were male (85%). Comparing patients with a SC or DC ICD or programming, we found similar rates of mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-1.68; P = 0.86] and inappropriate therapies (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.97-2.19; P = 0.07) in five and six studies, respectively. In three studies of SC vs. DC ICDs (but not programming) rates of pneumothorax and lead dislodgement were not different (OR 2.12, 95% CI 0.18-24.72; P = 0.55 and OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.32-2.47; P = 0.83, respectively).Conclusion: In this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing SC vs. DC ICD device or programming, there was no significant difference in inappropriate therapies, mortality, pneumothorax, or lead dislodgement. Future studies should compare these devices over longer follow-up and in specific patient populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background No precise tools exist to predict appropriate shocks in patients with a primary prevention ICD. We sought to identify characteristics predictive of appropriate shocks in patients with a primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Methods Using patient-level data from the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT II) and the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT), we identified patients with any appropriate shock. Clinical and demographic variables were included in a logistic regression model to predict appropriate shocks. Results There were 1,463 patients randomized to an ICD, and 285 (19%) had ≥1 appropriate shock over a median follow-up of 2.59 years. Compared with patients without appropriate ICD shocks, patients who received any appropriate shock tended to have more severe heart failure. In a multiple logistic regression model, predictors of appropriate shocks included NYHA class (NYHA II vs. I: OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07-2.55; NYHA III vs. I: OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.10-2.76), lower LVEF (per 1% change) (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06), absence of beta-blocker therapy (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.23-2.12), and single chamber ICD (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.13-2.45). Conclusion In this meta-analysis of patient level data from MADIT-II and SCD-HeFT, higher NYHA class, lower LVEF, no beta-blocker therapy, and single chamber ICD (vs. dual chamber) were significant predictors of appropriate shocks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is highly effective therapy for preventing sudden cardiac death, there is considerable uncertainty about its benefits and harms in older patients, especially in the presence of factors, other than old age, that increase the risk of death.Objective: To develop a prioritized research agenda for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute as informed by a diverse group of stakeholders on the use and outcomes of the ICD in older patients.Design: The existing literature was reviewed to identify evidence gaps, which were then refined by engaged stakeholders. Using a forced-ranking prioritization method, the stakeholders ranked evidence gaps by importance. For the highest-ranked evidence gaps, relevant recent studies were identified using PubMed, and relevant ongoing trials were identified using ClinicalTrials.gov.Participants: Eighteen stakeholders, including clinical experts and researchers in the prevention of sudden cardiac death and ICD therapy, representatives from federal and non-governmental funding agencies, representatives from relevant professional societies, health care decision-makers and policymakers, and representatives from related consumer and patient advocacy groupsKey Results: The top 12 evidence gaps prioritized by stakeholders were related to the safety and effectiveness of ICDs in older patient subgroups not well represented in clinical trials, predictors of SCD, the impact of the ICD on quality of life, the use of shared decision-making, disparities in ICD use, risk stratification strategies, patient preferences, and distribution of modes of death in older patients.Conclusions: In this paper, we identify evidence gaps of high priority for current and future investigations of ICD therapy. Addressing these gaps will likely resolve many of the uncertainties surrounding the use and outcomes of the ICD in older patients seen in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Sudden 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. Methods. We 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. Results. We 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). Conclusions. We 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) improves the survival of patients at increased risk of sudden cardiac death due to systolic heart failure, ICD shocks have been associated with both worse survival and quality of life. We performed a systematic review of primary prevention ICD studies to evaluate the incidence and clinical predictors of appropriate ICD shocks or anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Methods: We performed a literature search in MEDLINE. Eligible studies had to be full text, written in the English language, performed in adults aged ≥ 19, and published from 1999 through April 2014. Results: Of 289 identified studies, 9 met all our inclusion criteria. The mean length of follow up ranged from 17 to 45.5 months. The incidence of appropriate ICD therapy varied from 17% to 31%. Among those studies, only 4 included data on the clinical characteristics of appropriate ICD therapy recipients. Characteristics associated with appropriate ICD therapy included male sex, advanced New York Heart Association class, non-sustained ventricular tachycardia, and lower serum creatinine. Patients who received appropriate therapy were also less likely to be on a beta-blocker. Left ventricular ejection fraction was not significantly different between patients who received appropriate ICD therapy and those who did not. Conclusion: The incidence of appropriate ICD therapy is not trivial in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and a primary prevention ICD. Predictors of appropriate ICD therapy have not been adequately assessed in large patient populations. As such, large prospective studies of predictors of appropriate ICD therapies are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IMPORTANCE Clinical 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. OBJECTIVE To characterize patients with LVEF between 30% and 35% and compare the survival of those with and without ICDs. DESIGN. SETTING. AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective 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 MEASURES The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; data were obtained from Medicare claims through December 31,2011. RESULTS There 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 < .001) (P = .20 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS AND relevance Among Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for heart failure and with an LVEF between 30% and 35% and less than 30%. survival at 3 years was better in patients who received a prophylactic ICD than in comparable patients with no ICD. These findings support guideline recommendations to implant prophylactic ICDs in eligible patients with an LVEF of 35% or less. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is a study that evaluates the quality of patient education and decision-making materials related to sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) and treatment with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). The 18 SCA and ICD educational tools were assessed by a panel of two cardiologists, two electrophysiologists, a psychologist, a patient advocate, and a health services researcher. Four of the tools were rated good, 12 were marginal, and two were inadequate.

The article discusses a study which determined the number, characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients who receive a non-evidence-based implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and examined the distribution of these implants by site, physician specialty, and year of procedure. The study analyzed cases submitted to the National Cardiovascular Data Registry-ICD Registry between January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2009. It was found that patients who received a non-evidence-based ICD had a higher risk of in-hospital death.

ICD Implant Timing. Background: The optimal timing of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placement for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death after myocardial infarction (MI) remains unknown. Methods and Results: We developed a Markov model to investigate the optimal timing of ICD implantation after MI (no ICD, ICD at 60 days, 6 months, and 1 year) in patients who meet current guidelines. Estimates of arrhythmic death (baseline risk 6%, range 1–20% per year), nonarrhythmic death, and ICD efficacy were based upon MADIT-II and other contemporary post-MI clinical trials. We used both deterministic and stochastic modeling processes in our analysis. After 10 years follow-up, the baseline probability of survival was higher in those treated with ICD implantation versus not (42% vs 30%, P < 0.001). Survival was highest with ICD implantation at 60 days versus 6 months versus 1 year: 42.4%, 42.3%, and 42.0% (P = 0.0028). ICD implantation at 60 days provided a mean incremental survival of 0.28 months and 0.84 months per patient (compared with implantation at 6 months and 1 year). In sensitivity analyses, patients’ competing risk for nonarrhythmic death was the primary determinant of benefit from ICD implantation. Overall, ICD implantation at 60 days resulted in the greatest life expectancy over a wide range of plausible nonarrhythmic and arrhythmic death rates. Conclusions: The benefits of early ICD implantation are modest when compared with delayed implantation at 6 months/1 year. Our results suggest that making sure a patient receives an ICD, when appropriate, may be more important than the timing of the implantation procedure. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. pp. 791-798, July 2010) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ICD: Remote Monitoring Versus Clinic Interrogations. Introduction: Remote monitoring is increasingly becoming the new standard of care for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) follow-up. We sought to determine whether remote monitoring of ICDs improves patient outcomes compared with quarterly device interrogations in clinic. Methods and Results: In this single-center pilot clinical trial, adult patients with an ICD were randomly assigned to remote monitoring versus quarterly device interrogations in clinic. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular hospitalization, emergency room visit for a cardiac cause, and unscheduled visit to the electrophysiology clinic for a device-related issue at 1 year. We also examined health-related quality of life, costs, and patient satisfaction with their ICD care. Of 151 patients enrolled in this trial, 76 were randomized to remote monitoring and 75 to quarterly device interrogations in clinic. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint (32% in the remote monitoring arm vs 34% in the control arm; P = 0.8), mortality, or cost between the 2 arms. Quality of life and patient satisfaction were significantly better in the control arm than in the remote monitoring arm at 6 months (83 [25th, 75th percentiles 70, 90] vs 75 [50, 85]; P = 0.002 and 88 [75, 100] vs 75 [75, 88]; P = 0.03, respectively), but not at 12 months. Conclusion: We showed no significant reduction in cardiac-related resource utilization with remote monitoring of ICDs. However, given the small number of patients in our study, the real clinical and health economics impact of remote monitoring needs to be verified by a large, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 21, pp. 545-550, May 2010) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on guideline-driven therapies intended on stopping sudden cardiac death (SCD). It states that one therapy to prevent SCD is the implantable cardioverter defrillator (ICD). It mentions that while ICD is cost effective and beneficial, most patients at risk of SCD are not receiving ICD. It examines results of a think tank by the Duke Center for the Prevention of SCD at Duke Clinical Research Institute in Durham, North Carolina.

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is a costly new treatment for patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death. Randomized trials of the ICD showed it to be effective in some groups of patients but not in others. While new trials testing the ICD were ongoing to clarify the evidence, policymakers faced immediate decisions about providing insurance coverage for the device. The high cost of ICDs, the large population of patients potentially eligible to receive them, the potential to reduce preventable deaths, and the unsettled state of the medical evidence provided a challenge to evidence-based medicine and to policymakers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Compares the cost-effectiveness of a third-generation implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) with that of empirical amiodarone treatment for preventing sudden cardiac death among high-risk patients. Model description; Quality-adjusted life-years gained; Sensitivity analysis of ICD therapy; Effects of ICD on mortality.

Background: Benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) varies by QRS characteristics; individual randomized trials are underpowered to assess benefit for relatively small subgroups. Methods: The authors analyzed patient-level data from pivotal CRT trials (MIRACLE [Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation], MIRACLE-ICD [Multicenter InSync ICD Randomized Clinical Evaluation], MIRACLE-ICD II [Multicenter InSync ICD Randomized Clinical Evaluation II], REVERSE [Resynchronization Reverses Remodeling in Systolic Left Ventricular Dysfunction], RAFT [Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure], BLOCK-HF [Biventricular Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Heart Failure Patients with Atrioventricular Block], COMPANION [Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing and Defibrillation in Heart Failure], and MADIT-CRT [Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial – Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy]) using Bayesian Hierarchical Weibull survival regression models to assess CRT benefit by QRS morphology (left bundle branch block [LBBB], n=4549; right bundle branch block [RBBB], n=691; and intraventricular conduction delay [IVCD], n=1024) and duration (with 150-ms partition). The continuous relationship between QRS duration and CRT benefit was also examined within subgroups defined by QRS morphology. The primary end point was time to heart failure hospitalization (HFH) or death; a secondary end point was time to all-cause death. Results: Of 6264 patients included, 25% were women, the median age was 66 [interquartile range, 58 to 73] years, and 61% received CRT (with or without an implantable cardioverter defibrillator). CRT was associated with an overall lower risk of HFH or death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [credible interval (CrI), 0.65 to 0.84]), and in subgroups of patients with QRS ≥150 ms and either LBBB (HR, 0.56 [CrI, 0.48 to 0.66]) or IVCD (HR, 0.59 [CrI, 0.39 to 0.89]), but not RBBB (HR 0.97 [CrI, 0.68 to 1.34]; P interaction <0.001). No significant association for CRT with HFH or death was observed when QRS was <150 ms (regardless of QRS morphology) or in the presence of RBBB. Similar relationships were observed for all-cause death. Conclusions: CRT is associated with reduced HFH or death in patients with QRS ≥150 ms and LBBB or IVCD, but not for those with RBBB. Aggregating RBBB and IVCD into a single "non-LBBB" category when selecting patients for CRT should be reconsidered. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT00271154, NCT00251251, NCT00267098, and NCT00180271. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response by researcher Gillian D. Sanders and his colleagues to letters to the editor about their article on the cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy in the October 6, 2005 issue is presented.