Long term outcomes of patients receiving Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in a contemporary implant population in the Essex region of the UK

Abstract Introduction Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death in patients who are at risk and amongst among heart failure (HF) patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Objective The aim of this study was to determine the differences in outcomes amongst patients in a contemporary ICD implant population based on primary or secondary indications and an ischaemic or non-ischaemic aetiology. The primary outcome was death or appropriate device therapy for a ventricular arrhythmia. The secondary outcome was inappropriate shock therapy. Purpose The study cohort included consecutive patients who had an ICD or CRT-D implanted at a high-volume regional referral centre in Essex between 2014 and 2015. The censor point for follow up was 31/12/2018. Cumulative incidences were analysed by the method of Kaplan–Meier and compared using the log-rank test. In addition, the relationship between several clinical variables were tested in a multivariate Cox model to predict long-term mortality and this is described with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI. Results 407 patients who received ICD treatment were followed up for a mean of 50±4 months. 63% had an Ischaemic cardiomyopathy and 60% had a primary prevention indication. Majority were men (81.5%), mean LVEF was (31±11) and mean age (71±11). The incidence of appropriate ICD therapy at 1-year post ICD insertion was 6.8% in all patients. This was significantly higher in patients with a secondary prevention indication compared to primary prevention (11.7% v 3.6% p=0.015) but similar in ischaemic compared to non-ischaemic patients (7.8% v 5.2% p=0.46). 1.9% patients had an inappropriate shock at 1 year and between group rate was similar. Overall 8.1% of patients did not survive beyond 1-year post implant with a mean time to death of 5.6±3.6 months. The cumulative incidence of the primary end-point at 1 year was similar in ischaemic and non-Ischaemic patients (7.8% v 8.6%; HR: 1.04, 95% CI 0.7–1.5, p=0.83) but was significantly higher at the end of study period in patients with an ischaemic aetiology (32.4% v 21%; HR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.1–2.4, p=0.024) (Fig.1). In an adjusted Cox Hazard model, appropriate ICD therapy at 1 year (HR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.17–0.47, p<0.001) and a secondary indication for ICD treatment (HR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.31–0.73, p=0.001) were strongly associated with long-term mortality. Figure 1 Conclusions Our study highlights outcomes in a long-term follow up of ICD patients and in light of the debate around the DANISH trial, we have shown that at 1 year, the benefit of ICD therapy is comparable in non-ischaemic compared to ischaemic cardiomyopathies. Moreover, patients who had an ICD implanted for secondary prevention had a 3-fold mortality benefit at 1 year and had a higher rate of death. Appropriate ICD therapy and a secondary prevention indication predicted long term mortality

Preferred learning modalities and practice for critical skills: a global survey of paediatric emergency medicine clinicians

Objective To describe senior paediatric emergency clinician perspectives on the optimal frequency of and preferred modalities for practising critical paediatric procedures. Methods Multicentre multicountry cross-sectional survey of senior paediatric emergency clinicians working in 96 EDs affiliated with the Pediatric Emergency Research Network. Results 1332/2446 (54%) clinicians provided information on suggested frequency of practice and preferred learning modalities for 18 critical procedures. Yearly practice was recommended for six procedures (bag valve mask ventilation, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), endotracheal intubation, laryngeal mask airway insertion, defibrillation/direct current (DC) cardioversion and intraosseous needle insertion) by at least 80% of respondents. 16 procedures were recommended for yearly practice by at least 50% of respondents. Two procedures (venous cutdown and ED thoracotomy) had yearly practice recommended by <40% of respondents. Simulation was the preferred learning modality for CPR, bag valve mask ventilation, DC cardioversion and transcutaneous pacing. Practice in alternative clinical settings (eg, the operating room) was the preferred learning modality for endotracheal intubation and laryngeal mask insertion. Use of models/mannequins for isolated procedural training was the preferred learning modality for all other invasive procedures. Free-text responses suggested the utility of cadaver labs and animal labs for more invasive procedures (thoracotomy, intercostal catheter insertion, open surgical airways, venous cutdown and pericardiocentesis). Conclusions Paediatric ED clinicians suggest that most paediatric critical procedures should be practised at least annually. The preferred learning modality depends on the skill practised; alternative clinical settings are thought to be most useful for standard airway manoeuvres, while simulation-based experiential learning is applicable for most other procedures