Comparison of Inappropriate Shocks and Other Health Outcomes Between Single- and Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Results from the Cardiovascular Research Network Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

Background In US clinical practice, many patients who undergo placement of an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death receive dual‐chamber devices. The superiority of dual‐chamber over single‐chamber devices in reducing the risk of inappropriate ICD shocks in clinical practice has not been established. The objective of this study was to compare risk of adverse outcomes, including inappropriate shocks, between single‐ and dual‐chamber ICDs for primary prevention. Methods and Results We identified patients receiving a single‐ or dual‐chamber ICD for primary prevention who did not have an indication for pacing from 15 hospitals within 7 integrated health delivery systems in the Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillators from 2006 to 2009. The primary outcome was time to first inappropriate shock. ICD shocks were adjudicated for appropriateness. Other outcomes included all‐cause hospitalization, heart failure hospitalization, and death. Patient, clinician, and hospital‐level factors were accounted for using propensity score weighting methods. Among 1042 patients without pacing indications, 54.0% (n=563) received a single‐chamber device and 46.0% (n=479) received a dual‐chamber device. In a propensity‐weighted analysis, device type was not significantly associated with inappropriate shock (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.59–1.38 [P=0.65]), all‐cause hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.87–1.21 [P=0.76]), heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.72–1.21 [P=0.59]), or death (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.93–1.53 [P=0.17]). Conclusions Among patients who received an ICD for primary prevention without indications for pacing, dual‐chamber devices were not associated with lower risk of inappropriate shock or differences in hospitalization or death compared with single‐chamber devices. This study does not justify the use of dual‐chamber devices to minimize inappropriate shocks

Device Therapies Among Patients Receiving Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in the Cardiovascular Research Network

BACKGROUND: Primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in selected patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction by delivering therapies (antitachycardia pacing or shocks) to terminate potentially lethal arrhythmias; inappropriate therapies also occur. We assessed device therapies among adults receiving primary prevention ICDs in 7 healthcare systems. METHODS AND RESULTS: We linked medical record data, adjudicated device therapies, and the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. Survival analysis evaluated therapy probability and predictors after ICD implant from 2006 to 2009, with attention to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups: left ventricular ejection fraction, 31% to 35%; nonischemic cardiomyopathy \u3c9 \u3emonths\u27 duration; and New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator. Among 2540 patients, 35% wereold, 26% were women, and 59% were white. During 27 (median) months, 738 (29%) received ≥1 therapy. Three-year therapy risk was 36% (appropriate, 24%; inappropriate, 12%). Appropriate therapy was more common in men (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-2.35). Inappropriate therapy was more common in patients with atrial fibrillation (adjusted HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.68-2.87), but less common among patients ≥65 years old versus younger (adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.95) and in recent implants (eg, in 2009 versus 2006; adjusted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46-0.95). In Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development analysis, inappropriate therapy was less common with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator versus single chamber (adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.84); therapy risk did not otherwise differ for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In this community cohort of primary prevention patients receiving ICD, therapy delivery varied across demographic and clinical characteristics, but did not differ meaningfully for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups

Comparison of Inappropriate Shocks and Other Health Outcomes Between Single- and Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Results From the Cardiovascular Research Network Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

BACKGROUND: In US clinical practice, many patients who undergo placement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death receive dual-chamber devices. The superiority of dual-chamber over single-chamber devices in reducing the risk of inappropriate ICD shocks in clinical practice has not been established. The objective of this study was to compare risk of adverse outcomes, including inappropriate shocks, between single- and dual-chamber ICDs for primary prevention. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified patients receiving a single- or dual-chamber ICD for primary prevention who did not have an indication for pacing from 15 hospitals within 7 integrated health delivery systems in the Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators from 2006 to 2009. The primary outcome was time to first inappropriate shock. ICD shocks were adjudicated for appropriateness. Other outcomes included all-cause hospitalization, heart failure hospitalization, and death. Patient, clinician, and hospital-level factors were accounted for using propensity score weighting methods. Among 1042 patients without pacing indications, 54.0% (n=563) received a single-chamber device and 46.0% (n=479) received a dual-chamber device. In a propensity-weighted analysis, device type was not significantly associated with inappropriate shock (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.38 [P=0.65]), all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.21 [P=0.76]), heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.21 [P=0.59]), or death (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.53 [P=0.17]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who received an ICD for primary prevention without indications for pacing, dual-chamber devices were not associated with lower risk of inappropriate shock or differences in hospitalization or death compared with single-chamber devices. This study does not justify the use of dual-chamber devices to minimize inappropriate shocks

Device Therapies Among Patients Receiving Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverterâ Defibrillators in the Cardiovascular Research Network

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/143721/1/jah33061_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/143721/2/jah33061.pd

Apical Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Presenting as Recurrent Unexplained Syncope

Apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (AHC) is a rare variant of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Since its description by Sakamoto in 1976 in Japanese patients, our understanding of this entity has evolved. Although cardiac magnetic resonance imaging has emerged as the gold standard for diagnosing AHC, clinical attention must be drawn to the unique electrocardiographic features that provide the initial clues to making the diagnosis. In this case, we present a 47-year-old man with AHC who presented with recurrent syncope, but anomalies on his electrocardiogram went unnoticed on two clinical encounters. He was subsequently admitted to our service and rapidly diagnosed after we observed the very classical findings in the plain twelve lead electrocardiogram done at the time of admission. In a clinical encounter involving a patient presenting with recurrent syncope, special attention must be focused on the electrocardiogram to decipher the unique diagnostic features it might show

Three-Year Survival after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Findings from the Marshfield Aortic Valve Experience (MAVE) Study

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a rapidly evolving treatment for severe aortic stenosis. However, uncertainties exist for optimal valve selection as there are few long-term studies comparing patient survival by valve type.Objective: We hypothesized that self-expandable valves (SEV) would provide a survival advantage over balloon expandable valves (BEV), as SEV continue to expand and might better accommodate to the anatomy of the aortic valve over time.Methods: We examined outcomes according to valve type from a rural tertiary referral center between 2012 and 2017.Results: Out of 269 patients, 77 deaths (28.6%) occurred over the study period with 6 deaths by 1 month post-TAVR and 37 deaths by 1 year post-TAVR. The median observation time for survivors was 21.5 months. The probability of survival at 3 years was 60.7% and 61.9% for patients who underwent treatment with SEV and BEV, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in overall patient survival with or without adjustment for factors such as age, sex, race, and aortic valve area. Additionally, in a secondary analysis restricted to those patients treated in later years (2015-2017) survival among patients with BEV appeared superior (HR=0.456, P=0.015).Conclusion: Patients who underwent TAVR at a rural medical center with SEV showed similar survival compared to those who received a BEV. Superior survival was observed among those who received BEV versus SEV between 2015 and 2017

Kidney function and appropriateness of device therapies in adults with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Objective: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have higher risk of sudden cardiac death; however, they may not receive implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), in part due to higher risk of complications. We evaluated whether CKD is associated with greater risk of device-delivered shocks/antitachycardia pacing (ATP) therapies among patients receiving a primary prevention ICD. Methods: We studied participants in the observational Cardiovascular Research Network Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators. CKD was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) \u3c60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Outcomes included all delivered shocks/ATPs therapies and type of shock/ATP therapies (inappropriate or appropriate, determined by physician adjudication) within the 3 years. We evaluated the associations between CKD and time to first device therapy, burden of device therapy, and inappropriate versus appropriate device therapy, adjusting for demographics, comorbidity, laboratory values and medication use. Results: Among 2161 participants, 1066 (49.3%) had CKD (eGFR 44±11 mL/min/1.73 m2) at ICD implantation. During mean of 2.26±0.89 years, 9.8% and 18.5% of participants had at least one inappropriate and appropriate shock/ATP therapies, respectively. CKD was not associated with time to first shock/ATP therapies (adjusted HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05), overall burden of shock/ATP therapies (adjusted relative rate 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17) or inappropriate versus appropriate shock/ATP therapies (adjusted relative risk 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.14) compared with not having CKD. Conclusions: In adults receiving a primary prevention ICD, mild-to-moderate CKD was not associated with the timing, burden or appropriateness of subsequent device therapy. Potential concern for inappropriate ICD-delivered therapies should not preclude ICDs among eligible patients with CKD

Device Therapies Among Patients Receiving Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in the Cardiovascular Research Network

BACKGROUND: Primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in selected patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction by delivering therapies (antitachycardia pacing or shocks) to terminate potentially lethal arrhythmias; inappropriate therapies also occur. We assessed device therapies among adults receiving primary prevention ICDs in 7 healthcare systems. METHODS AND RESULTS: We linked medical record data, adjudicated device therapies, and the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. Survival analysis evaluated therapy probability and predictors after ICD implant from 2006 to 2009, with attention to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups: left ventricular ejection fraction, 31% to 35%; nonischemic cardiomyopathymonths\u27 duration; and New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator. Among 2540 patients, 35% wereold, 26% were women, and 59% were white. During 27 (median) months, 738 (29%) received ≥1 therapy. Three-year therapy risk was 36% (appropriate, 24%; inappropriate, 12%). Appropriate therapy was more common in men (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-2.35). Inappropriate therapy was more common in patients with atrial fibrillation (adjusted HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.68-2.87), but less common among patients ≥65 years old versus younger (adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.95) and in recent implants (eg, in 2009 versus 2006; adjusted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46-0.95). In Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development analysis, inappropriate therapy was less common with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator versus single chamber (adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.84); therapy risk did not otherwise differ for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In this community cohort of primary prevention patients receiving ICD, therapy delivery varied across demographic and clinical characteristics, but did not differ meaningfully for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups