Article

Trends in use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy among patients hospitalized for heart failure: have the previously observed sex and racial disparities changed over time?

MHS, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27715, USA.
Circulation (Impact Factor: 14.95). 03/2012; 125(9):1094-101. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.066605
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Prior studies have demonstrated low use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) as primary prevention, particularly among women and blacks. The degree to which the overall use of ICD therapy and disparities in use have changed is unclear.
We examined 11 880 unique patients with a history of heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% who were ≥65 years old and enrolled in the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) program from January 2005 through December 2009. We determined the rate of ICD use by year for the overall population and for sex and race groups. From 2005 to 2007, overall ICD use increased from 30.2% to 42.4% and then remained unchanged in 2008 to 2009. After adjustment for potential confounders, ICD use increased significantly in the overall study population during 2005 to 2007 (odds ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.48 per year; P=0.0008) and in black women (odds ratio, 1.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.58 per year; P=0.0008), white women (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.59 per year; P=0.010), black men (odds ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-1.99 per year; P=0.0009), and white men (odds ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.48 per year; P=0.0072). The increase in ICD use was greatest among blacks.
In the GWTG-HF quality improvement program, a significant increase in ICD therapy use was observed over time in all sex and race groups. The previously described racial disparities in ICD use were no longer present by the end of the study period; however, sex differences persisted.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
81 Views
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology 08/2014; 64(8):808–810. · 15.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Clinical trials have demonstrated benefit for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapies in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); yet, questions have been raised with regard to the benefit of device therapy for minorities. Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical effectiveness of CRT and ICD therapies as a function of race/ethnicity in outpatients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤35%). Methods Data from IMPROVE HF (Registry to Improve the Use of Evidence-Based Heart Failure Therapies in the Outpatient Setting) were analyzed by device status and race/ethnicity among guideline-eligible patients for mortality at 24 months. Multivariate Generalized Estimating Equations analyses were conducted, adjusting for patient and practice characteristics. Results The ICD/cardiac resynchronization defibrillator (CRT-D)–eligible cohort (n = 7,748) included 3,391 (44%) non-Hispanic white, 719 (9%) non-Hispanic black, and 3,638 (47%) other racial/ethnic minorities or race-not-documented patients. The cardiac resynchronization pacemaker (CRT-P)/CRT-D–eligible cohort (n = 1,188) included 596 (50%) non-Hispanic white, 99 (8%) non-Hispanic black, and 493 (41%) other/not-documented patients. There was clinical benefit associated with ICD/CRT-D therapy (adjusted odds ratio: 0.64, 95% confidence interval: 0.52 to 0.79, p = 0.0002 for 24-month mortality), which was of similar proportion in white, black, and other minority/not-documented patients (device–race/ethnicity interaction p = 0.7861). For CRT-P/CRT-D therapy, there were also associated mortality benefits (adjusted odds ratio: 0.55, 95% confidence interval: 0.33 to 0.91, p = 0.0222), and the device–race/ethnicity interaction was not significant (p = 0.5413). Conclusions The use of guideline-directed CRT and ICD therapy was associated with reduced 24-month mortality without significant interaction by racial/ethnic group. Device therapies should be offered to eligible heart failure patients, without modification based on race/ethnicity.
    Journal of the American College of Cardiology 08/2014; 64(8):797–807. · 15.34 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Significant racial/ethnic disparities have been documented in cardiovascular care. Although health care quality is improving for many Americans, differences in clinical outcomes have persisted between racial/ethnic minority patients and non-minorities, even when income, education level, and site of care are taken into consideration. Potential causes of disparities are complex and are related to differences in risk factor prevalence and control, use of evidence-based procedures and medications, and social and environmental factors. Minority patients are more likely to receive care from lower-quality health care providers and institutions and experience more barriers to accessing care. Factors such as stereotyping and bias in medicine are hard to quantify, but likely contribute to differences in treatment. Recent trends suggest that some disparities are decreasing. Opportunities for change and improvement exist for patients, providers, and health care systems. Promising interventions, such as health policy changes, quality improvement programs, and culturally targeted community and clinic-based interventions offer hope that high-quality health care in the USA can be provided to all patients.
    Current Cardiology Reports 10/2014; 16(10):530.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
30 Downloads
Available from
May 27, 2014