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

Perspectives of scientists on disseminating research findings to non-research audiences

BACKGROUND: Little is known about practices used to disseminate findings to non-research, practitioner audiences. This study describes the perspectives, experience and activities of dissemination & implementation (D&I) scientists around disseminating their research findings. METHODS: The study explored D&I scientists\u27 experiences and recommendations for assessment of dissemination activities to non-research audiences. Existing list serves were used to recruit scientists. Respondents were asked three open-ended questions on an Internet survey about dissemination activities, recommendations for changing evaluation systems and suggestions to improve their own dissemination of their work. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 159 scientists reporting some training, funding and/or publication history in D&I. Three themes emerged across each of the three open-ended questions. Question 1 on evaluation generated the themes of: 1a) promotional review; 1b) funding requirements and 1c) lack of acknowledgement of dissemination activities. Question 2 on recommended changes generated the themes of: 2a) dissemination as a requirement of the academic promotion process; 2b) requirement of dissemination plan and 2c) dissemination metrics. Question 3 on personal changes to improve dissemination generated the themes of: 3a) allocation of resources for dissemination activities; 3b) emerging dissemination channels and 3c) identify and address issues of priority for stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings revealed different types of issues D&I scientists encounter when disseminating findings to clinical, public health or policy audiences and their suggestions to improve the process. Future research should consider key requirements which determine academic promotion and grant funding as an opportunity to expand dissemination efforts

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

The impact of diabetes on one-year health status outcomes following acute coronary syndromes

Abstract Background Diabetes is an important predictor of mortality patients with ACS. However, little is known about the association between diabetes and health status after ACS. The objective of this study was to examine the association between diabetes and patients' health status outcomes one year after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods This was a prospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with ACS. Patients were evaluated at baseline and one year with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ). Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics were ascertained during index ACS hospitalization. One year SAQ Angina Frequency, Physical Limitation, and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) scales were the primary outcomes of the study. Results Of 1199 patients, 326 (37%) had diabetes. Patients with diabetes were more likely to present with unstable angina (52% vs. 40%; p < 0.001), less likely to present with STEMI (20% vs. 31%; p < 0.001), and less likely to undergo coronary angiography (68% vs. 82%; p < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, the presence of diabetes was associated with significantly more angina (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.01–1.38), cardiac-related physical limitation (OR 1.94; 95% CI 1.57–3.24) and HRQoL deficits (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.01–2.04) at one year. Conclusion Diabetes is associated with more angina, worse physical limitation, and worse HRQoL one year after an ACS. Future studies should assess whether health status outcomes of patients with diabetes could be improved through more aggressive ACS treatment or post-discharge surveillance and angina management.Peer Reviewe

Increased Mortality among Survivors of Myocardial Infarction with Kidney Dysfunction: the Contribution of Gaps in the use of Guideline-Based Therapies

Abstract Background We assessed the degree to which differences in guideline-based medical therapy for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) contribute to the higher mortality associated with kidney disease. Methods In the PREMIER registry, we evaluated patients from 19 US centers surviving AMI. Cox regression evaluated the association between estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and time to death over two years, adjusting for demographic and clinical variables. The contribution of variation in guideline-based medical therapy to differences in mortality was then assessed by evaluating the incremental change in the hazard ratios after further adjustment for therapy. Results Of 2426 patients, 26% had GFR ≥ 90, 44% had GFR = 60- < 90, 22% had GFR = 30- < 60, and 8% had GFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2. Greater degrees of renal dysfunction were associated with greater 2-year mortality and lower rates of guideline-based therapy among eligible patients. For patients with severely decreased GFR, adjustment for differences in guideline-based therapy did not significantly attenuate the relationship with mortality (HR 3.82, 95% CI 2.39–6.11 partially adjusted; HR = 3.90, 95% CI 2.42–6.28 after adjustment for treatment differences). Conclusion Higher mortality associated with reduced GFR after AMI is not accounted for by differences in treatment factors, underscoring the need for novel therapies specifically targeting the pathophysiological abnormalities associated with kidney dysfunction to improve survival.Peer Reviewe

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

Event-based processing of neutron scattering data at the Spallation Neutron Source

The Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, USA, ushered in a new era of neutron scattering experiments through the use of event-based data. Tagging each neutron event allows pump–probe experiments, measurements with a parameter asynchronous to the source, measurements with continuously varying parameters and novel ways of testing instrument components. This contribution will focus on a few examples. A pulsed magnet has been used to study diffraction under extreme fields. Continuous ramping of temperature is becoming standard on the POWGEN diffractometer. Battery degradation and phase transformations under heat and stress are often studied on the VULCAN diffractometer. Supercooled Al2O3 was studied on NOMAD. A study of a metallic glass through its glass transition was performed on the ARCS spectrometer, and the effect of source variation on chopper stability was studied for the SEQUOIA spectrometer. Besides a summary of these examples, an overview is provided of the hardware and software advances to enable these and many other event-based measurements

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

Event-based processing of neutron scattering data at the Spallation Neutron Source

The Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, USA, ushered in a new era of neutron scattering experiments through the use of event-based data. Tagging each neutron event allows pump–probe experiments, measurements with a parameter asynchronous to the source, measurements with continuously varying parameters and novel ways of testing instrument components. This contribution will focus on a few examples. A pulsed magnet has been used to study diffraction under extreme fields. Continuous ramping of temperature is becoming standard on the POWGEN diffractometer. Battery degradation and phase transformations under heat and stress are often studied on the VULCAN diffractometer. Supercooled Al2O3 was studied on NOMAD. A study of a metallic glass through its glass transition was performed on the ARCS spectrometer, and the effect of source variation on chopper stability was studied for the SEQUOIA spectrometer. Besides a summary of these examples, an overview is provided of the hardware and software advances to enable these and many other event-based measurements