Search

Clinical events committee (CEC) evaluation is the standard approach for end point adjudication in clinical trials. Due to resource constraints, large registries typically rely on site-reported end points without further confirmation, which may preclude use for regulatory oversight.We developed a novel automated adjudication algorithm (AAA) for end point adjudication in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (LAAO) Registry using an iterative process using CEC adjudication as the "gold standard." A ≥80% agreement rate between automated algorithm adjudication and CEC adjudication was prespecified as clinically acceptable. Agreement rates were calculated.A total of 92 in-hospital and 127 post-discharge end points were evaluated between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2019 using AAA and CEC. Agreement for neurologic events was90%. Percent agreement for in-hospital and post-discharge events was as follows: ischemic stroke 95.7% and 94.5%, hemorrhagic stroke 97.8% and 96.1%, undetermined stroke 97.8% and 99.2%, transient ischemic attack 98.9% and 98.4% and intracranial hemorrhage 100.0% and 94.5%. Agreement was80% for major bleeding (83.7% and 90.6%) and major vascular complication (89.1% and 97.6%). With this approach,1% of site reported end points require CEC adjudication. Agreement remained very good during the period after algorithm derivation.An AAA-guided approach for end point adjudication was successfully developed and validated for the LAAO Registry. With this approach, the need for formal CEC adjudication was substantially reduced, with accuracy maintained above an 80% agreement threshold. After application specific validation, these methods could be applied to large registries and clinical trials to reduce the cost of event adjudication while preserving scientific validity.

Background: The Food and Drug Administration approved left atrial appendage occlusion with the Watchman device for patients who are at increased stroke risk and are suitable for oral anticoagulation but who have an appropriate reason to seek a nondrug alternative. These broad criteria raise the question of their interpretation in clinical practice. There is a lack of studies comprehensively evaluating the indications for Watchman implantation among a large series of patients from contemporary, real-world practice in the United States. Methods: We used the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry to identify Watchman procedures performed between 2016 and 2018. We assessed procedural indications for Watchman implantation in the United States and evaluated the association between procedural indications and in-hospital adverse events. Results: A total of 38 314 procedures were included. The mean patient age was 76.1±8.1 years, and 58.9% were men. The mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was 4.8±1.5, whereas the mean hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol (HAS-BLED) score was 3.0±1.1. Prior stroke or transient ischemic attack was reported in 40.2% and prior bleeding in 70.1%, with gastrointestinal bleeding being most common (41.9%). The most common site-reported procedural indications for Watchman implantation were increased thromboembolic risk (64.8%) and history of major bleed (64.3%), followed by high fall risk (35.5%). Most (71.9%) had ≥2 procedural indications. Patients with high fall risk had increased risk of in-hospital adverse events (adjusted OR, 1.12; P =0.025), but no other differences were found in the risk of in-hospital adverse events by procedural indication. Conclusions: Among patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry, the most common procedural indications for Watchman implantation were increased thromboembolic risk, history of major bleed, and high fall risk. A majority of patients had multiple procedural indications. High fall risk conferred a modestly increased risk of in-hospital adverse events.

ObjectiveOlder, relatively small studies identified female sex as a risk factor for adverse events after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). We aimed to assess contemporary sex-based differences in baseline and procedural characteristics, adverse events, and quality of life among adults undergoing catheter ablation for AF.MethodsIn this observational cohort study, we evaluated those enrolled in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry AFib Ablation Registry between January 2016 and September 2020. Using logistic regression, we analysed the association between patient sex and in-hospital adverse events.ResultsAmong 58 960 adults (34.6% women) from 150 centres undergoing AF ablation by 706 physicians, women were older (68 vs 64 years, p1 day (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.41 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.49)), major adverse event (aOR 1.60 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.92)) and any adverse event (aOR 1.57 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.75)). Women had a higher risk of bradycardia requiring pacemaker, phrenic nerve damage, pericardial effusion, bleeding and vascular injury, but had no differences in death or acute pulmonary vein isolation.ConclusionsAmong almost 60 000 patients in the largest prospective registry of AF ablation procedures, female sex was independently associated with a higher risk of hospitalisation >1 day, adverse events, and reduced quality of life, although there were no differences in death or acute pulmonary vein isolation.

BackgroundContemporary data on national trends and outcomes in cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) recipients following the 2012 updated guidelines has not been studied.ObjectivesThis study assessed the trends in long-term outcomes among CRT-D Medicare-aged recipients implanted in 2011-2015.MethodsPatients aged ≥65 years undergoing de novo CRT-D implantation in the National Cardiovascular Data Implantable Cardiac Defibrillator Registry from 2011-2015 with follow-up through 2017 using Medicare data were included and stratified by year of implant. Patient characteristics, in-hospital outcomes, and outcomes up to 2 years following implant were evaluated.ResultsAmong 53,174 patients (aged 75.6-6.4 years, 29.7% women) implanted with CRT-D from 2011 to 2015, there was an increase in implantations based on guideline-concordant recommendations (81.0% to 84.7%, P < .001). Compared to 2011, in-hospital procedural complications decreased in 2015 (3.9% vs 2.9%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.76, 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.88, P< .001), driven in part by decreased lead dislodgement (1.4% vs 1.0%). After multivariable adjustment, there was a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization, cardiovascular hospitalization, and mortality at 2-year follow-up in 2015 as compared to 2011, while there were no differences in heart failure hospitalizations at follow-up.ConclusionAmong Medicare beneficiaries receiving CRT-D from 2011 to 2015, there was an increase in implantations based on guideline-concordant recommendations. Furthermore, there has been a reduction in in-hospital complications and long-term outcomes, including cardiovascular hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, and mortality; however, there has been no difference in the risk of heart failure hospitalization after adjustment.

Aims No prior study has been adequately powered to evaluate real-world safety outcomes in those receiving adjunctive ablation lesions beyond pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). We sought to evaluate characteristics and in-hospital complications among patients undergoing PVI with and without adjunctive lesions. Methods and results Patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry AFib Ablation Registry undergoing first-time atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation between 2016 and 2020 were identified and stratified into paroxysmal (PAF) and persistent AF, and separated into PVI only, PVI + cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation, and PVI + adjunctive (superior vena cava isolation, coronary sinus, vein of Marshall, atypical atrial flutter lines, other). Adjusted odds of adverse events were calculated using multivariable logistic regression. A total of 50 937 patients [PAF: 30 551 (60%), persistent AF: 20 386 (40%)] were included. Among those with PAF, there were no differences in the adjusted odds of complications between PVI + CTI or PVI + adjunctive when compared with PVI only. Among persistent AF, PVI + adjunctive was associated with a higher risk of any complication [3.0 vs. 4.5%, odds ratio (OR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07–1.58] and major complication (0.8 vs. 1.4%, OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.10–2.21), while no differences were observed in PVI + CTI compared with PVI only. Overall, there was high heterogeneity in adjunctive lesion type, and those receiving adjunctive lesions had a higher comorbidity burden. Conclusion Additional CTI ablation was common without an increased risk of complications. Adjunctive lesions other than CTI are commonly performed in those with more comorbidities and were associated with an increased risk of complications in persistent AF, although the current analysis is limited by high heterogeneity in adjunctive lesion set type.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are recommended for patients with cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) with an indication for pacing, prior ventricular arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, or left ventricular ejection fraction35%, but data on outcomes are limited.Using data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry between April 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015, we evaluated a propensity matched cohort of CS patients implanted with ICDs versus non-ischemic cardiomyopathies (NICM). We compared mortality using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models.We identified 1,638 patients with CS and 8,190 propensity matched patients with NICM. The rate of death at 1 and 2 years was similar in patients with CS and patients with NICM (5.2% vs 5.4%, P = 0.75 and 9.0% vs 9.3%, P = 0.72, respectively). After adjusting for other covariates, patients with CS had similar mortality at 2 years after ICD implantations compared with NICM patients (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87-1.23). Among patients with CS, multivariable logistic regression identified 6 factors significantly associated with increased 2-year mortality: presence of heart failure (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.44-3.22), New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III heart failure (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.16-2.45), NYHA Class IV heart failure (HR 3.08, 95% CI 1.49-6.39), atrial fibrillation/flutter (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.17-2.35), chronic lung disease (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.17-2.29), creatinine2.0 mg/dL (HR 4.07, 95% CI 2.63-6.30), and paced rhythm (HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.07-6.59).Mortality following ICD implantation was similar in CS patients compared with propensity matched NICM patients. Presence of heart failure, NYHA class, atrial fibrillation/flutter, chronic lung disease, renal dysfunction, and paced rhythm at time of implantation were all predictors of increased 2-year mortality among CS patients with ICDs.

The subcutaneous (S-) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is an alternative to the transvenous (TV-) ICD that is increasingly implanted in younger patients; data on the safety and effectiveness of the S-ICD in older patients are lacking.The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes among older patients who received an S- or TV-ICD.The authors compared S-ICD and single-chamber TV-ICD implants in Fee-For-Service Medicare beneficiaries using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. Outcomes were ascertained from Medicare claims data. Cox regression or competing-risk models (with TV-ICD as reference) with overlap weights were used to compare death and nonfatal outcomes (device reoperation, device removal for infection, device reoperation without infection, and cardiovascular admission), respectively. Recurrent all-cause readmissions were compared using Anderson-Gill models.A total of 16,063 patients were studied (age 72.6 ± 5.9 years, 28.4% women, ejection fraction 28.3 ± 8.9%). Compared with TV-ICD patients (n = 15,072), S-ICD patients (n = 991, 6.2% overall) were more often Black, younger, and dialysis dependent and less likely to have history of atrial fibrillation or flutter. In adjusted analyses, there were no differences between device type and risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.020; 95% CI: 0.819-1.270), device reoperation (subdistribution [s] HR: 0.976; 95% CI: 0.645-1.479), device removal for infection (sHR: 0.614; 95% CI: 0.138-2.736), device reoperation without infection (sHR: 0.975; 95% CI: 0.632-1.506), cardiovascular readmission (sHR: 1.087; 95% CI: 0.912-1.295), or recurrent all-cause readmission (HR: 1.072; 95% CI: 0.990-1.161).In a large representative national cohort of older patients undergoing ICD implantation, risk of death, device reoperation, device removal for infection, device reoperation without infection, and cardiovascular and all-cause readmission were similar among S- and TV-ICD recipients.

Background: Differences in patient characteristics, changes in treatment algorithms, and advances in medical technology could each influence the applicability of older randomized trial results to contemporary clinical practice. The DAPT Study (Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) found that longer-duration DAPT decreased ischemic events at the expense of greater bleeding, but subsequent evolution in stent technology and clinical practice may attenuate the benefit of prolonged DAPT in a contemporary population. We evaluated whether the DAPT Study population is different from a contemporary population of US patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention and estimated the treatment effect of extended-duration antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention in this more contemporary cohort. Methods: We compared the characteristics of drug-eluting stent–treated patients randomly assigned in the DAPT Study to a sample of more contemporary drug-eluting stent–treated patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry from July 2016 to June 2017. After linking trial and registry data, we used inverse-odds of trial participation weighting to account for patient and procedural characteristics and estimated a contemporary real-world treatment effect of 30 versus 12 months of DAPT after coronary stent procedures. Results: The US drug-eluting stent–treated trial cohort included 8864 DAPT Study patients, and the registry cohort included 568 540 patients. Compared with the trial population, registry patients had more comorbidities and were more likely to present with myocardial infarction and receive 2nd-generation drug-eluting stents. After reweighting trial results to represent the registry population, there was no longer a significant effect of prolonged DAPT on reducing stent thrombosis (reweighted treatment effect: –0.40 [95% CI, –0.99% to 0.15%]), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (reweighted treatment effect, –0.52 [95% CI, –2.62% to 1.03%]), or myocardial infarction (reweighted treatment effect, –0.97% [95% CI, –2.75% to 0.18%]), but the increase in bleeding with prolonged DAPT persisted (reweighted treatment effect, 2.42% [95% CI, 0.79% to 3.91%]). Conclusions: The differences between the patients and devices used in contemporary clinical practice compared with the DAPT Study were associated with the attenuation of benefits and greater harms attributable to prolonged DAPT duration. These findings limit the applicability of the average treatment effects from the DAPT Study in modern clinical practice.

BACKGROUND Bleeding is a common and costly complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Bleeding avoidance strategies (BAS) are used paradoxically less in patients at high-risk of bleeding: "bleeding risk-treatment paradox" (RTP). We determined whether hospitals and physicians, who do not align BAS to PCI patients' bleeding risk (ie, exhibit a RTP) have higher bleeding rates. METHODS We examined 28,005 PCIs from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry for 7 hospitals comprising BJC HealthCare. BAS included transradial intervention, bivalirudin, and vascular closure devices. Patients' predicted bleeding risk was based on National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI bleeding model and categorized as low (

Objectives The study sought to assess the proportion of patients in modern U.S. interventional practice that fulfilled criteria for enrollment in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial. Background The ISCHEMIA trial, which enrolled patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD), showed that revascularization improved angina symptoms with little effect on death or myocardial infarction. Methods A cross-sectional analysis of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry (v5.0), including 1,662 hospitals, was performed. Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for SIHD in routine clinical practice meeting ISCHEMIA trial inclusion criteria and those that did not were evaluated. Results During the study period, 388,212 patients underwent PCI for SIHD, comprising 41.88% of all patients undergoing PCI during the study period. Of these, 125,302 (32.28%; 13.52% of all patients undergoing PCI) met criteria for enrollment in the ISCHEMIA trial. Among SIHD patients that did not meet criteria, 71,852 (18.51%) had SIHD with high-risk features (35.2% left main disease, 43.7% left ventricular systolic dysfunction, 16.8% end-stage renal disease), 67,159 (17.3%) had SIHD with negative or low-risk functional testing, and 123,899 (31.92%) either had no stress testing or did not have ischemic burden reported. At the median hospital, 32.1% (interquartile range: 23.5%-40.6%) of SIHD patients met criteria for enrollment in the ISCHEMIA trial, with these patients experiencing lower unadjusted in-hospital mortality rate than comparator groups who met exclusion criteria for the trial (0.11%) (P Conclusions Among contemporary U.S. patients undergoing PCI for SIHD, 32.28% clearly met enrollment criteria for the ISCHEMIA trial. There was significant variation among individual centers in the proportion of SIHD patients meeting criteria for the ISCHEMIA trial.

Background: Left atrial appendage occlusion is an important alternative to anticoagulation in select patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Trends in real-world device sizing and associated short-term complications have not been characterized. Methods: Using the National Cardiovascular Data Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (NCDR LAAO) Registry, patients who underwent left atrial appendage occlusion with a Watchman 2.5 device from January 1, 2016, to June 30, 2020, were identified. Patients were stratified by device size based on left atrial appendage orifice size, and categorized as receiving a device that was undersized, oversized, or per manufacturer recommendation. Relationships between device sizing and short-term outcomes, including pericardial effusion, device embolism, and significant leak, were assessed. Results: Of the 68 456 patients, 6539 (10.5%) of patients received undersized devices, 17 791 (26.0%) according to manufacturer recommendations, and 44 126 (64.4%) received an oversized device. The 27-mm device was most commonly deployed [21 736 (31.8%)], whereas the smallest and largest devices (21 and 33 mm) were least commonly deployed [7695 (11.2%) and 9077 (13.3%), respectively]. Compared with manufacturer recommended sizing, there was no difference in the odds of pericardial effusion for either undersized (1.048 [95% CI‚ 0.801–1.372]; P= 0.733) or oversized (1.101 [95% CI‚ 0.933–1.298]; P= 0.254) devices. Similarly, relative to manufacturer recommended sizing, the odds of a composite adverse outcome of device migration or embolization and significant peridevice leak at 45 days were similar among undersized devices (1.030 [95% CI‚ 0.735–1.444]; P= 0.863) and favorable for oversized devices (0.701 [95% CI‚ 0.561–0.876]; P= 0.002) devices, primarily driven by lower odds of leak. Selection of oversized devices increased significantly over the study period (from 60.3% in 2016 to 66.0% in 2020; P Conclusions: Among patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion with the first-generation Watchman device, receipt of oversized devices was common and increased over time. The high prevalence of oversizing was associated with lower odds of significant leak or device embolization without increased odds of other adverse events.

Objectives This study analyzed the predictors of defibrillation safety margin (DSM) testing at the time of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) insertion and factors associated with inadequate DSM in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). Background There are few data about the prevalence and safety of DSM testing in those with CHD. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed of all patients with atrial or ventricular septal defect, tetralogy of Fallot, transposition of the great vessels, Ebstein anomaly, or common ventricle undergoing a transvenous ICD procedure in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) ICD Registry from April 2010 to March 2016, and DSM testing was assessed. Inadequate DSM was defined as a lowest successful energy tested Results Of all ICD recipients (N = 7,024), DSM testing was performed in 52.0% (n = 3,654). The mean lowest successful energy tested was 20.7 ± 7.3 J. Of those with DSM adequacy data available (n = 3,623), an inadequate DSM occurred in 13.8% (n = 501). After multivariable adjustment, DSM testing was not associated with in-hospital complications or death (odds ratio [OR]: 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79 to 1.28) but was associated with lower odds of prolonged hospital stay (>3 days) (OR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.84; p Conclusions DSM testing is being performed less frequently over time and seems safe in those with CHD. An inadequate DSM was not associated with worse in-hospital outcomes.

Primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with recent myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization and those with newly diagnosed or severe heart failure (HF) are considered non-evidence-based, as defined by pivotal randomized clinical trials. Although non-evidence-based ICDs have been associated previously with greater risk of in-hospital adverse events, longitudinal outcomes are not known. We used Medicare-linked data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's ICD Registry to identify patients discharged alive following first-time primary prevention ICD implantations performed between 2010 and 2013. We compared longitudinal outcomes, including all-cause mortality and all-cause hospital readmission among patients receiving non-evidence-based versus evidence-based ICDs, up to 4.75 years after implantation, using multivariable time-to-event analyses. Of 71,666 ICD implantations, 9,609 (13.4%) were classified as non-evidence-based. Compared to patients receiving evidence-based ICDs, non-evidence-based ICD recipients had greater mortality risk at 90 days (HR = 1.44, CI: 1.37 - 1.52, p0.0001) and at 1 year (HR = 1.19, CI: 1.15 - 1.24, p0.0001), but similar mortality risk at 3 years (HR = 1.03, CI: 0.98 - 1.08, p = 0.2630). Risk of all-cause hospitalization was higher in patients with non-evidence-based ICDs at 90 days (HR = 1.17, CI: 1.14 - 1.20, p0.0001), but the difference diminished at 1 year (HR = 1.04, CI 1.00 - 1.07, p = 0.0272) and at 3 years (HR = 0.94, CI: 0.90 - 0.99, p = 0.0105). In conclusion, among patients undergoing primary prevention ICD implantations between 2010 and 2013, those with non-evidence-based ICDs were at increased risk of mortality and readmission during longitudinal follow-up. Differences in the risk of mortality and hospitalization were highest in the first year following device implantation.

Background Standardization of risk is critical in benchmarking and quality improvement efforts for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). In 2018, the CathPCI Registry was updated to include additional variables to better classify higher-risk patients. Objectives This study sought to develop a model for predicting in-hospital mortality risk following PCI incorporating these additional variables. Methods Data from 706,263 PCIs performed between July 2018 and June 2019 at 1,608 sites were used to develop and validate a new full and pre-catheterization model to predict in-hospital mortality, and a simplified bedside risk score. The sample was randomly split into a development cohort (70%, n = 495,005) and a validation cohort (30%, n = 211,258). The authors created 1,000 bootstrapped samples of the development cohort and used stepwise selection logistic regression on each sample. The final model included variables that were selected in at least 70% of the bootstrapped samples and those identified a priori due to clinical relevance. Results In-hospital mortality following PCI varied based on clinical presentation. Procedural urgency, cardiovascular instability, and level of consciousness after cardiac arrest were most predictive of in-hospital mortality. The full model performed well, with excellent discrimination (C-index: 0.943) in the validation cohort and good calibration across different clinical and procedural risk cohorts. The median hospital risk-standardized mortality rate was 1.9% and ranged from 1.1% to 3.3% (interquartile range: 1.7% to 2.1%). Conclusions The risk of mortality following PCI can be predicted in contemporary practice by incorporating variables that reflect clinical acuity. This model, which includes data previously not captured, is a valid instrument for risk stratification and for quality improvement efforts.

Procedural complications limit the clinical benefit of transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). Next-generation devices incorporate design modifications intended to improve procedural safety, but their clinical impact has not been described.The aim of this study was to compare in-hospital outcomes for the Watchman FLX with the predicate Watchman 2.5 device.The National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry was used to identify patients who received the Watchman FLX and an identical number of patients receiving the Watchman 2.5 at the same sites directly preceding the first Watchman FLX case at each site. The primary endpoint was in-hospital major adverse events (MAE), defined as a composite of death, cardiac arrest, stroke, transient ischemic attack, intracranial hemorrhage, systemic arterial embolism, major bleeding, major vascular complication, myocardial infarction, pericardial effusion requiring intervention (percutaneous or surgical), and device embolization. A secondary analysis was performed using 2:1 propensity score matching of patients receiving the Watchman 2.5 or Watchman FLX.The study cohort consisted of 27,013 patients receiving each device. The rate of in-hospital MAE was significantly lower for the Watchman FLX compared with the Watchman 2.5 (1.35% vs 2.40%; adjusted OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.50-0.65; P 0.0001), driven largely by fewer pericardial effusions requiring intervention (0.42% vs 1.23%; adjusted OR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.28-0.42; P 0.0001). The Watchman FLX was also associated with significant lower rates of the individual endpoints of in-hospital mortality (0.12% vs 0.24%; P 0.0001), major bleeding (1.08% vs 2.05%; P 0.0001), cardiac arrest (0.13% vs 0.24%; P = 0.006), and device embolization (0.02% vs 0.06%; P = 0.028), while myocardial infarction, stroke, and major vascular complications did not differ between groups. Propensity score matching analysis demonstrated similar results, with lower rates of MAE with the Watchman FLX (1.34% vs 2.58%; OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.46-0.58; P 0.0001).Transcatheter LAAO with the Watchman FLX was associated with lower rates of in-hospital MAE compared with the predicate Watchman device, including mortality, pericardial effusion, major bleeding, cardiac arrest, and device embolization. This may favorably influence the balance of risks and benefits of transcatheter LAAO for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Atrial cardiomyopathy has been recognized as having important consequences for cardiac performance and clinical outcomes. The pathophysiological role of the left atrial (LA) appendage and the effect of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) upon LA mechanics is incompletely understood. We evaluated if changes in LA stiffness due to endocardial LAAO can be detected by LA pressure-volume (PV) analysis and whether stiffness parameters are associated with baseline characteristics. Patients undergoing percutaneous endocardial LAAO (

Whether insurance status influences practice patterns in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) defibrillators, when indicated, is not known.We analyzed the NCDR ICD Registry to evaluate associations of insurance status with guidelines-based receipt of CRT, as well as device-type, complication rates, and use of optimal medical therapy defined by guidelines. Among 798,028 patients with de novo ICD implants, we included only patients65 years (those older have Medicare) and excluded those admitted before 2006 (n=1,835) or with insurance coverage other than Medicare, Medicaid or private insurance (n=25,695) leaving 286,556 for analysis. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to control for imbalances between groups. Mean age was 53 years, 29% were female. Patients with private insurance and Medicare were more likely to receive CRT-D when indicated (79.6%, OR 1.19 95% CI 1.09-1.28, P.001 and 78.5%, OR 1.11 95% CI 1.01-1.21 P = .03, respectively) compared to the uninsured (76.7%). The uninsured were also more likely than other groups to receive a single-chamber device. Complication rates did not differ. Uninsured patients were, however, more likely to receive optimal medical therapy, particularly in the subgroup receiving the implant for primary prevention.In propensity-weighted analysis, uninsured patients are less likely to receive CRT when indicated but more likely to be receiving optimal medical therapy at discharge. Reasons for differences in device implantation practices based on insurance status require further study.

Background/objectives Advanced age is associated with increased susceptibility to acute adverse effects of propofol. The present study aimed to describe patterns of propofol dosing for induction of general anesthesia before endotracheal intubation in a nationwide sample of older adults presenting for surgery. Design Retrospective observational study using the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group data set. Setting Thirty-six institutions across the United States. Participants A total of 350,766 patients aged over 65 years who received propofol for general anesthetic induction and endotracheal intubation between 2014 and 2018. Intervention None. Measurements Total induction bolus dose of propofol administered. Results The mean (SD) weight-adjusted propofol dose was 1.7 (0.6) mg/kg. The mean prevalent propofol induction dose exceeded the upper bound of what has been described as the typical geriatric dose requirement across every age category examined. The percent of patients receiving propofol induction doses above the described typical geriatric range was 64.8% (95% CI 64.6-65.0), varying from 73.8% among patients aged 65-69 to 45.8% among patients aged 80 and older. Conclusion The present study of a large multicenter cohort demonstrates that prevalent propofol dosing commonly falls above the published typically required dose range for patients aged ≥65 in nationwide anesthetic practice. Widespread variability in induction dose administration remains incompletely explained by known patient variables. The nature and clinical consequences of these unexplained dosing decisions remain important topics for further study. Observed discordance between expected and actual induction dosing raises the question of whether there should be reconsideration of widespread provider practice or, alternatively, whether what is published as the typical propofol induction dose range should be revisited.

Background: Pericardial effusion (PE) is a potential complication of transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion. The objective of this study was to investigate the incidence, associated characteristics, and outcomes of PE following left atrial appendage occlusion. Methods: Patients in the NCDR LAAO Registry who underwent a Watchman procedure between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019 were included. The primary outcome was in-hospital PE requiring intervention (percutaneous drainage or surgery). Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for adverse event rates associated with PE. Results: The study population consisted of 65 355 patients. The mean patient age was 76.2±8.1 years, and the mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was 4.6±1.5. PE occurred in 881 patients (1.35%). Clinical variables independently associated with PE included older age, female sex, left ventricular function, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, prior bleeding, lower serum albumin, and preprocedural dual antiplatelet therapy; procedural variables included number of delivery sheaths used, sinus rhythm during the procedure, and moderate sedation rather than general anesthesia. PE was associated with increased risk of in-hospital stroke (OR, 6.58 [95% CI, 3.32–13.06]; P P P P P Conclusions: In-hospital PE during transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion is infrequent but associated with a substantially higher risk of adverse events, including in-hospital and early postdischarge mortality. Strategies to minimize PE are critical to improve the risk-benefit ratio for this therapy.

Background and objectives Patients on dialysis are at high risk of complications related to implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation; use of subcutaneous ICDs may be preferred over transvenous devices due to lower risk of bloodstream infection and interference with vascular access sites. We evaluated trends in use and in-hospital outcomes of subcutaneous compared with transvenous ICDs among patients on dialysis in the United States. Design, setting, participants, & measurements Retrospective analysis of ICD implants from 2012 to 2018 among patients on dialysis reported to the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry, a nationally representative US ICD Registry. We examined overall trends in subcutaneous ICD adoption as a proportion of all eligible ICD implants among patients on dialysis and then compared in-hospital outcomes between eligible subcutaneous ICD and transvenous ICD recipients using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results Of the 23,136 total ICD implants in patients on dialysis during the study period, 3195 (14%) were subcutaneous ICDs. Among eligible first-time ICD recipients on dialysis, the proportion of subcutaneous ICDs used increased yearly from 10% in 2012 to 69% in 2018. In propensity score–weighted analysis of 3327 patients, compared with transvenous ICDs, patients on dialysis receiving subcutaneous ICDs had a higher rate of in-hospital cardiac arrest (2% versus 0.4%, P=0.002), but there was no significant difference in total in-hospital complications (2% versus 1%, P=0.08), all-cause death, or length of hospital stay. Conclusions The utilization of subcutaneous ICDs among US patients on dialysis has been steadily increasing. The overall risk of short-term complications is low and comparable with transvenous ICDs, but higher risks of in-hospital cardiac arrest merits closer monitoring and further investigation. Podcast This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2020_09_23_CJN07920520.mp3

ACC/AHA guidelines support the use of the P2YMulticenter, longitudinal analysis of patients and hospitals in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Chest Pain - MI Registry from the third quarter of 2013 to the first quarter of 2017.A total of 362,354 AMI patients treated at 801 hospitals were included in our analysis. Ticagrelor use increased over time, from 6.1% in 2013 to 33.7% in 2017, with corresponding reductions in the use of clopidogrel and prasugrel (p 0.001 for all trends). In multivariable models, patients of white race, with private insurance, or STEMI were more likely to receive ticagrelor (p 0.05 for all). Hospitals in the highest quartile of ticagrelor uptake had use rates ranging from 29% to 88%, and were more likely to have the lowest volume of MI patients. The correlation between prasugrel and ticagrelor adoption was weakly positive (correlation coefficient: 0.15, p = 0.004); hospitals with the lowest early adoption of prasugrel started with the lowest rate of ticagrelor use and had the slowest rate of increase in ticagrelor use.There has been a rapid increase in use of ticagrelor since its approval by the FDA and both patient and hospital characteristics were associated with variation in its adoption and utilization. Further examination of the characteristics associated with the rapid adoption of new evidence may provide insights about improving health system performance.

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed in the United States. Among other reforms, Medicaid expansion for low-income adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level contributed to broadening health insurance access to >17 million Americans ([1][1]).

Background: Impella was approved for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in 2008, but large-scale, real-world data on its use are lacking. Our objective was to describe trends and variations in Impella use, clinical outcomes, and costs across US hospitals in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treated with MCS (Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump). Methods: From the Premier Healthcare Database, we analyzed 48 306 patients undergoing PCI with MCS at 432 hospitals between January 2004 and December 2016. Association analyses were performed at 3 levels: time period, hospital, and patient. Hierarchical models with propensity adjustment were used for association analyses. We examined trends and variations in the proportion of Impella use, and associated clinical outcomes (in-hospital mortality, bleeding requiring transfusion, acute kidney injury, stroke, length of stay, and hospital costs). Results: Among patients undergoing PCI treated with MCS, 4782 (9.9%) received Impella; its use increased over time, reaching 31.9% of MCS in 2016. There was wide variation in Impella use across hospitals (>5-fold variation). Specifically, among patients receiving Impella, there was a wide variation in outcomes of bleeding (>2.5-fold variation), and death, acute kidney injury, and stroke (all ≈1.5-fold variation). Adverse outcomes and costs were higher in the Impella era (years 2008–2016) versus the pre-Impella era (years 2004–2007). Hospitals with higher Impella use had higher rates of adverse outcomes and costs. After adjustment for the propensity score, and accounting for clustering of patients by hospitals, Impella use was associated with death: odds ratio, 1.24 (95% CI, 1.13–1.36); bleeding: odds ratio, 1.10 (95% CI, 1.00–1.21); and stroke: odds ratio, 1.34 (95% CI, 1.18–1.53), although a similar, nonsignificant result was observed for acute kidney injury: odds ratio, 1.08 (95% CI, 1.00–1.17). Conclusions: Impella use is rapidly increasing among patients undergoing PCI treated with MCS, with marked variability in its use and associated outcomes. Although unmeasured confounding cannot be ruled out, when analyzed by time periods, or at the hospital level or the patient level, Impella use was associated with higher rates of adverse events and costs. More data are needed to define the appropriate role of MCS in patients undergoing PCI.

Use of dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) systems among patients without a pacing indication is an example of low-value care given higher procedural risks, higher costs, and little evidence for benefit from an atrial lead. However, variation in the use of dual-chamber systems was present among patients without a pacing indication.To examine the temporal trends and hospital variation in use of single- and dual-chamber ICD implantation among patients without a pacing indication undergoing first-time ICD implantation.A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted using the US National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. A total of 266 182 patients undergoing initial implantation of a single- or dual-chamber transvenous ICD without a bradycardia pacing indication, class I or II cardiac resynchronization therapy indication, or history of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter were included. The study was conducted from April 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018; data analysis was performed from October 19, 2020, to January 5, 2022.Implantation of a single- or dual-chamber ICD.Temporal trends among patients undergoing single- vs dual-chamber ICDs were determined using the Cochran-Armitage trend test, and hospital-level variation using adjusted hospital median odds ratios was examined.A total of 266 182 patients (single-chamber ICD, 134 925; dual-chamber ICD, 131 257) were included in this analysis; mean (SD) age was 58.0 (14.0) years and 91 990 patients (68.2%) were men. The use of dual-chamber ICDs decreased from 64.7% (n = 15 694) in 2010 to 42.2% (n = 9762) in 2018 (P .001). Adjusted for patient characteristics, the median hospital-level proportion of single-chamber ICDs increased from 42.9% (95% CI, 42.6%-45.0%) in 2010 to 50.0% (95% CI, 47.8%-51.0%) in 2018. The median odds ratio for the use of dual-chamber ICDs, adjusted for patient characteristics, was 1.6 (95% CI, 1.6-1.8) in 2010 and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.5-1.8) in 2018, indicating decreasing but persistent variation in use.In this national study of US patients undergoing first-time ICD implantation without a clinical indication for an atrial lead, the use of dual-chamber devices decreased. However, institutional variability in the use of atrial leads persists, suggesting differences in individual or institutional cultures of real-world practice and opportunity to reduce this low-value practice.

The aim of this study was to report 1-year clinical outcomes following commercial transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) in the United States.The National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry was initiated to meet a condition of Medicare coverage and allow the assessment of clinical outcomes. The 1-year rates of thromboembolic events after transcatheter LAAO in such a large cohort of "real-world" patients have not been previously reported.Patients entered into the National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry for a Watchman procedure between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018, were included. The primary endpoint was ischemic stroke. Key secondary endpoints included the rate of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, mortality, and major bleeding. Major bleeding was defined as any bleeding requiring hospitalization, and/or causing a decrease in hemoglobin level2g/dL, and/or requiring blood transfusion that was not hemorrhagic stroke. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for 1-year estimates of cumulative event rates.The study population consisted of 36,681 patients. The mean age was 76.0 ± 8.1 years, the mean CHAThis study characterizes important outcomes in a national cohort of patients undergoing transcatheter LAAO in the United States. Clinicians and patients can integrate these data in shared decision making when considering this therapy.

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes among patients from the PROTECT-AF (WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic PROTECTion in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) and PREVAIL (Evaluation of the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage [LAA] Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy) left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) trials with matched patients from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry using patient-level data.Patients undergoing LAAO in clinical practice generally have more comorbidities than trial participants.Propensity-matched analyses, with up to 3 registry patients matched to each trial patient, were performed using Cox proportional hazards and Fine-Gray models.A total of 1,904 registry patients were matched to 667 trial LAAO patients; 1,010 registry patients were matched to 348 warfarin patients. Compared with registry patients, trial LAAO patients experienced more pericardial effusion requiring intervention (3.8% vs 0.6%, P 0.001), periprocedural ischemic stroke (0.9% vs 0.2%, P = 0.005), and failed device implantation (7.5% vs 3.6%, P 0.001). The 425-day risk of ischemic stroke in trial LAAO patients was higher than in registry patients (2.70% vs 1.21%; HR: 1.951; P = 0.03); warfarin patients had comparable rates of ischemic stroke compared with registry patients (1.15% vs 1.29%; HR: 0.728; P = 0.57). Hemorrhagic stroke risk was similar among trial LAAO and registry patients (P = 0.88). Hemorrhagic stroke risk was greater among warfarin patients versus registry patients (1.44% vs 0.20%; HR: 5.871, P = 0.03). Mortality was lower in trial LAAO patients than in registry patients (2.92% vs 6.23%; HR: 0.477; P = 0.004), a difference attributable to noncardiovascular deaths. Mortality was similar (P = 0.44) among trial warfarin (4.48%) and registry (5.86%) patients.In clinical practice, patients who meet trial criteria and undergo LAAO experience a lower risk of ischemic stroke, a similar risk of hemorrhagic stroke, and a higher risk of death after implant versus LAAO trial patients. (WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic PROTECTion in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [PROTECT-AF], NCT00129545; Evaluation of the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage [LAA] Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy [PREVAIL], NCT01182441).

BACKGROUND The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis® and Abbott Riata®/Riata ST® leads are at risk of failure and are subject to FDA recall. Comparative risks of various lead management strategies during elective generator change in a multi-center population are unknown. We aim to describe patients with functional, recalled ICD leads undergoing elective generator replacement and report outcomes according to lead management strategies. METHODS Using data from the NCDR ICD Registry, patients with a functioning Riata® or Fidelis® lead undergoing generator replacement are described according to lead management: reuse, abandon/replace, and extract/replace. Adjusted rates of death and pre-discharge complications are reported. RESULTS There were 13,144 generator replacement procedures involving a functioning, non-infected Riata® or Fidelis® lead (extraction n = 414, abandonment n = 427). Extraction patients were younger (mean 58 vs. 67 years) with fewer comorbidities than the reuse group. Maximum lead dwell time was similar between groups with average 94, 90, and 99 months in the extraction, abandonment, and reuse groups, respectively. In-hospital complications or mortality were more common in the extraction group (10.14%, 4.35%) compared with abandonment (1.64%, 0.47%) and reuse (0.22%, 0.07%). Compared with reuse, the adjusted odds of death or pre-discharge complication were significantly higher in the extraction group (OR 7.77 95% CI 2.42-24.95, p

Importance Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has emerged as an alternative to anticoagulation for select patients with atrial fibrillation; however, women have been underrepresented in clinical trials of LAAO, and sex-specific subanalyses are limited. Objective To evaluate the sex differences in the baseline characteristics of patients undergoing LAAO implant and in the in-hospital outcomes after LAAO implant. Design, Setting, and Participants A total of 49 357 patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry undergoing LAAO with the Watchman device between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2019, were included in this study. Exposure Female or male sex. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcomes were aborted or canceled procedure, major adverse event, any adverse event, prolonged hospital stay longer than 1 day, and death. Unadjusted and multivariable adjusted logistic regression analyses were performed to assess sex differences in in-hospital adverse events. Results In this cohort study of 49 357 patients (mean [SD] age, 76.1 [8.0] years), 20 388 women (41.3%) and 28 969 (58.7%) men underwent LAAO. Compared with men, women were older and had a higher prevalence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, prior stroke, and uncontrolled hypertension but a lower prevalence of congestive heart failure, diabetes, and coronary artery disease. After multivariable adjustment, there were no differences in aborted or canceled procedures between women and men (613 [3.0%] vs 851 [2.9%]; odds ratio [OR] 1.01, 95% CI, 0.90-1.13). Women were more likely than men to experience any adverse event (1284 [6.3%] vs 1144 [3.9%]; P

Background: Prior studies on the use of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV PCI) for patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease have yielded heterogeneous results. The recent COMPLETE trial (Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization Strategies to Treat Multivessel Disease After Early PCI for STEMI) demonstrated that MV PCI was superior to culprit-only PCI among patients with STEMI. It is unclear how these trial results apply to clinical decisions encountered in routine practice. Methods: We studied STEMI admissions among patients >65 years with multivessel disease and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services–linked data in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry from July 1, 2009 to December 31, 2017. MV PCI was defined as PCI to a nonculprit lesion ≤45 days of the index procedure. The primary outcome was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization from 45 days through 1 year. To account for unmeasured confounders, an instrumental variable analysis was used to compare treatment strategies. The instrument was institutional rates of MV PCI. A falsification end point of postdischarge major bleeding was utilized to assess for residual confounding. Results: Of 56 332 admissions from 1102 institutions, 37.7% received MV PCI ≤45 days of index STEMI PCI. Of those undergoing MV PCI, 74.8% received complete revascularization. In unadjusted analysis, MV PCI was associated with a lower cumulative incidence of the composite outcome between 45 days and 1 year (13.9% versus 18.2% for non-MV PCI, P P =0.46). An association between MV PCI and the falsification end point of major bleeding was not observed (adjusted risk difference, −2.54% [95% CI, −5.30% to 0.22%]; P =0.07). Conclusions: In this large, nationwide analysis, we did not find benefit of MV PCI by 1 year among older STEMI patients. The clinical benefit of MV PCI may not extend equally outside of trials to include all patients, including those with more extreme ages and more complex decision-making.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) investigated implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) not meeting the Centers for MedicareMedicaid Services National Coverage Determination (NCD) criteria, resulting in increased adherence to the NCD criteria. Trends of the specific reasons for patients not meeting the NCD criteria and in-hospital outcomes for those patients are not known.We analyzed 300,151 primary-prevention ICDs from 2007-2015 at 1809 hospitals. We calculated the rates of in-hospital adverse events and the proportion of ICDs not meeting the 4 NCD criteria before and after the announcement of the DOJ investigation, stratified by whether hospitals paid settlements to the DOJ. Most reductions in the use of devices in patients not meeting NCD criteria were in patients with recently diagnosed heart failure (15.5%-6.8% for settled; 13.5%-7.3% for nonsettled) and who had had a recent myocardial infarction (8.4%-1.3% for settled; 7.4% to 1.5% for nonsettled). Adverse-event rates were significantly higher for ICDs not meeting NCD criteria (odds ratio 1.26 for settled; P0.001; 1.18 for nonsettled; P = 0.001).After the investigation, there was a rapid reduction in the placement of ICDs in patients with recent acute myocardial infarction or recent diagnosis of heart failure. Patients who did not meet NCD criteria experienced more in-hospital adverse events and higher mortality rates.