Competing risks of cancer mortality and cardiovascular events in individuals with multimorbidity

Background: Cancer patients with cardiovascular and other comorbidities are at concurrent risk of multiple adverse outcomes. However, most treatment decisions are guided by evidence from single-outcome models, which may be misleading for multimorbid patients. Objective: We assessed the interacting effects of cancer, cardiovascular, and other morbidity burdens on the competing outcomes of cancer mortality, serious cardiovascular events, and other-cause mortality. Design: We analyzed a cohort of 6,500 adults with initial cancer diagnosis between 2001 and 2008, SEER 5-year survival ≥26%, and a range of cardiovascular risk factors. We estimated the cumulative incidence of cancer mortality, a serious cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, or cardiovascular mortality), and other-cause mortality over 5 years, and identified factors associated with the competing risks of each outcome using cause-specific Cox proportional hazard models. Results: Following cancer diagnosis, there were 996 (15.3%) cancer deaths, 328 (5.1%) serious cardiovascular events, and 542 (8.3%) deaths from other causes. In all, 4,634 (71.3%) cohort members had none of these outcomes. Although cancer prognosis had the greatest effect, cardiovascular and other morbidity also independently increased the hazard of each outcome. The effect of cancer prognosis on outcome was greatest in year 1, and the effect of other morbidity was greater in individuals with better cancer prognoses. Conclusion: In multimorbid oncology populations, comorbidities interact to affect the competing risk of different outcomes. Quantifying these risks may provide persons with cancer plus cardiovascular and other comorbidities more accurate information for shared decision-making than risks calculated from single-outcome models. Journal of Comorbidity 2014:4(1):29–3

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

Competing Risks of Cancer Mortality and Cardiovascular Events in Individuals with Multimorbidity

Background Cancer patients with cardiovascular and other comorbidities are at concurrent risk of multiple adverse outcomes. However, most treatment decisions are guided by evidence from single-outcome models, which may be misleading for multimorbid patients. Objective We assessed the interacting effects of cancer, cardiovascular, and other morbidity burdens on the competing outcomes of cancer mortality, serious cardiovascular events, and other-cause mortality. Design We analyzed a cohort of 6,500 adults with initial cancer diagnosis between 2001 and 2008, SEER 5-year survival ≥26%, and a range of cardiovascular risk factors. We estimated the cumulative incidence of cancer mortality, a serious cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, or cardiovascular mortality), and other-cause mortality over 5 years, and identified factors associated with the competing risks of each outcome using cause-specific Cox proportional hazard models. Results Following cancer diagnosis, there were 996 (15.3%) cancer deaths, 328 (5.1%) serious cardiovascular events, and 542 (8.3%) deaths from other causes. In all, 4,634 (71.3%) cohort members had none of these outcomes. Although cancer prognosis had the greatest effect, cardiovascular and other morbidity also independently increased the hazard of each outcome. The effect of cancer prognosis on outcome was greatest in year 1, and the effect of other morbidity was greater in individuals with better cancer prognoses. Conclusion In multimorbid oncology populations, comorbidities interact to affect the competing risk of different outcomes. Quantifying these risks may provide persons with cancer plus cardiovascular and other comorbidities more accurate information for shared decision-making than risks calculated from single-outcome models

Longitudinal study of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: methods and clinical characteristics of patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for primary prevention in contemporary practice

Background- Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are increasingly used for primary prevention after randomized, controlled trials demonstrating that they reduce the risk of death in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The extent to which the clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of unselected, community-based patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction undergoing primary prevention ICD implantation in a real-world setting compare with those enrolled in the randomized, controlled trials is not well characterized. This study is being conducted to address these questions. Methods and Results- The study cohort includes consecutive patients undergoing primary prevention ICD placement between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2009 in 7 health plans. Baseline clinical characteristics were acquired from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. Longitudinal data collection is underway, and will include hospitalization, mortality, and resource use from standardized health plan data archives. Data regarding ICD therapies will be obtained through chart abstraction and adjudicated by a panel of experts in device therapy. Compared with the populations of primary prevention ICD therapy randomized, controlled trials, the cohort (n=2621) is on average significantly older (by 2.5-6.5 years), more often female, more often from racial and ethnic minority groups, and has a higher burden of coexisting conditions. The cohort is similar, however, to a national population undergoing primary prevention ICD placement. Conclusions- Patients undergoing primary prevention ICD implantation in this study differ from those enrolled in the randomized, controlled trials that established the efficacy of ICDs. Understanding a broad range of health outcomes, including ICD therapies, will provide patients, clinicians, and policy makers with contemporary data to inform decision-making

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