Article

Use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators for primary prevention in the community: Do women and men equally meet trial enrollment criteria?

University of Colorado Denver, Division of Cardiology, 12631 E. 17th Ave., Mailstop B130, PO Box 6511, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
American heart journal (Impact Factor: 4.56). 09/2009; 158(2):224-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2009.05.018
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Fewer women than men undergo implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. The criteria used to select patients for ICD implantation may be more permissive among men than for women. We hypothesized that women who undergo primary prevention ICD implantation more often meet strict trial enrollment criteria for this therapy.
We studied 59,812 patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD registry undergoing initial primary prevention ICD placement between January 2005 and April 2007. Patients were classified as meeting or not meeting enrollment criteria of either the MADIT-II or SCD-HeFT trials. Multivariable analyses assessed the association between gender and concordance with trial criteria adjusting for demographic, clinical, and system characteristics.
Among the cohort, 27% (n = 16,072) were women. Overall, 85.2% of women and 84.5% of men met enrollment criteria of either trial (P = .05). In multivariable analyses, women were equally likely to meet trial criteria (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99-1.10) than men. Significantly more women than men met the trial enrollment criteria among patients older than age 65 (86.6% of women vs 85.3% of men, OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.19), but this difference was not found among younger patients (82.5% of women vs 83.0% of men, OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89-1.07).
In a national cohort undergoing primary prevention ICD implantation, older women were only slightly more likely then men to meet the enrollment criteria for MADIT II or SCD-HeFT. Relative overutilization in men is not an important explanation for gender differences in ICD implantation.

Full-text

Available from: Yongfei Wang, Jan 18, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
96 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Current practice guidelines advocate delaying assessment of primary prevention implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) candidacy at least 40 days after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) because early ICD implantation after AMI has not demonstrated survival benefit. The rate at which interval reassessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) occurs in potential primary prevention ICD candidates is unknown. We examined patients with AMI in the TRIUMPH registry with inhospital LVEF <40% discharged alive after their index presentation, excluding patients with a prior ICD and those who declined ICD during the index admission or were discharged to hospice. We conducted multivariable Poisson modeling to identify independent factors associated with LVEF reassessment by 6 months after AMI. Of the 533 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, only 187 (35.1%) reported LVEF reassessment in the first 6 months after AMI and only 13 patients (2.4%) underwent ICD implantation by 1 year. In multivariable analysis, early cardiology follow-up after AMI was associated with a higher likelihood of LVEF reassessment (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.28), whereas uninsured status and cardiologist-driving inpatient medical decision making were associated with a lower likelihood of LVEF reassessment (odds ratios 0.84 [95% CI 0.74-0.96] and 0.78 [95% CI 0.68-0.91], respectively). In contemporary practice, almost 2 of 3 potential primary prevention ICD candidates did not report follow-up LVEF evaluation, with a very low rate of ICD implantation at 1 year. These results suggest an important gap in quality, highlighting the need for better transitions of care.
    American heart journal 10/2013; 166(4):737-743. DOI:10.1016/j.ahj.2013.07.019 · 4.56 Impact Factor
  • Heart (British Cardiac Society) 11/2013; 100(3). DOI:10.1136/heartjnl-2013-305072 · 6.02 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Contemporary patterns of use and outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in community practice settings are not well characterized. We assessed temporal trends in patient characteristics and outcomes among older patients undergoing primary prevention ICD therapy in US hospitals between 2006 and 2010. Methods and Results Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's ICD Registry, we identified Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years and older with left ventricular ejection fraction 35% who underwent primary prevention ICD implantation, including those receiving concomitant cardiac resynchronization therapy between 2006 and 2010 and could be matched to Medicare claims. Outcomes were mortality and hospitalization (all-cause and heart failure) at 180 days, and device-related complications. We used multivariable hierarchical logistic regression to assess temporal trends in outcomes accounting for changes in patient, physician, and hospital characteristics. The cohort included 117 100 patients. Between 2006 and 2010, only modest changes in patient characteristics were noted. Fewer single lead devices and more cardiac resynchronization therapy devices were used over time. Between 2006 and 2010, there were significant improvements in all outcomes, including 6-month all cause mortality (7.1% in 2006, 6.5% 2010; adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.95), 6-month rehospitalization (36.3% in 2006, 33.7% in 2010; adjusted odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.91), and device-related complications (5.8% in 2006, 4.8% in 2010; adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.88). Conclusions The clinical characteristics of this national population of Medicare patients undergoing primary prevention ICD implantation were stable between 2006 and 2010. Simultaneous improvements in outcomes suggest meaningful advances in the care for this patient population.
    Circulation 08/2014; 130(10). DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.008653 · 14.95 Impact Factor