Browsing by Subject "Electric Countershock"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Open Access Association Between Comorbidities and Outcomes in Heart Failure Patients With and Without an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator for Primary Prevention.(J Am Heart Assoc, 2015-08-06) Khazanie, Prateeti; Hellkamp, Anne S; Fonarow, Gregg C; Bhatt, Deepak L; Masoudi, Frederick A; Anstrom, Kevin J; Heidenreich, Paul A; Yancy, Clyde W; Curtis, Lesley H; Hernandez, Adrian F; Peterson, Eric D; Al-Khatib, Sana MBACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy is associated with improved outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF), but whether this association holds among older patients with multiple comorbid illnesses and worse HF burden remains unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's ICD Registry and the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry linked with Medicare claims, we examined outcomes associated with primary-prevention ICD versus no ICD among HF patients aged ≥65 years in clinical practice. We included patients with an ejection fraction ≤35% who received (ICD Registry) and who did not receive (GWTG-HF) an ICD. Compared with patients with an ICD, patients in the non-ICD group were older and more likely to be female and white. In matched cohorts, the 3-year adjusted mortality rate was lower in the ICD group versus the non-ICD group (46.7% versus 55.8%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.83). There was no associated difference in all-cause readmission (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.08) but a lower risk of HF readmission (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.97). When compared with no ICD, ICDs were also associated with better survival in patients with ≤3 comorbidities (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87) and >3 comorbidities (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.93) and in patients with no hospitalization for HF (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.86) and at least 1 prior HF hospitalization (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82). In subgroup analyses, there were no interactions between ICD and mortality risk for comorbidity burden (P=0.95) and for prior HF hospitalization (P=0.46). CONCLUSION: Among older HF patients, ICDs for primary prevention were associated with lower risk of mortality even among those with high comorbid illness burden and prior HF hospitalization.Item Open Access Follow-up of patients with new cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: are experts' recommendations implemented in routine clinical practice?(Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology, 2013-02) Al-Khatib, Sana M; Mi, Xiaojuan; Wilkoff, Bruce L; Qualls, Laura G; Frazier-Mills, Camille; Setoguchi, Soko; Hess, Paul L; Curtis, Lesley HBackground
A 2008 expert consensus statement outlined the minimum frequency of follow-up of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs).Methods and results
We studied 38 055 Medicare beneficiaries who received a new CIED between January 1, 2005, and June 30, 2009. The main outcome measure was variation of follow-up by patient factors and year of device implantation. We determined the number of patients who were eligible for and attended an in-person CIED follow-up visit within 2 to 12 weeks, 0 to 16 weeks, and 1 year after implantation. Among eligible patients, 42.4% had an initial in-person visit within 2 to 12 weeks. This visit was significantly more common among white patients than black patients and patients of other races (43.0% versus 36.8% versus 40.5%; P<0.001). Follow-up within 2 to 12 weeks improved from 40.3% in 2005 to 55.1% in 2009 (P<0.001 for trend). The rate of follow-up within 0 to 16 weeks was 65.1% and improved considerably from 2005 to 2009 (62.3%-79.6%; P<0.001 for trend). Within 1 year, 78.0% of the overall population had at least 1 in-person CIED follow-up visit.Conclusions
Although most Medicare beneficiaries who received a new CIED between 2005 and 2009 did not have an initial in-person CIED follow-up visit within 2 to 12 weeks after device implantation, the rate of initial follow-up improved appreciably over time. This CIED follow-up visit was significantly more common in white patients than in patients of other races.Item Open Access Optimal management of Riata leads with no known electrical abnormalities or externalization: a decision analysis.(Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2015-02) Pokorney, Sean D; Zhou, Ke; Matchar, David B; Love, Sean; Zeitler, Emily P; Lewis, Robert; Piccini, Jonathan PIntroduction
Riata and Riata ST implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads (St. Jude Medical, Sylmar, CA, USA) can develop conductor cable externalization and/or electrical failure. Optimal management of these leads remains unknown.Methods and results
A Markov model compared 4 lead management strategies: (1) routine device interrogation for electrical failure, (2) systematic yearly fluoroscopic screening and routine device interrogation, (3) implantation of new ICD lead with capping of the in situ lead, and (4) implantation of new ICD lead with extraction of the in situ lead. The base case was a 64-year-old primary prevention ICD patient. Modeling demonstrated average life expectancies as follows: capping with new lead implanted at 134.5 months, extraction with new lead implanted at 134.0 months, fluoroscopy with routine interrogation at 133.9 months, and routine interrogation at 133.5 months. One-way sensitivity analyses identified capping as the preferred strategy with only one parameter having a threshold value: when risk of nonarrhythmic death associated with lead abandonment is greater than 0.05% per year, lead extraction is preferred over capping. A second-order Monte Carlo simulation (n = 10,000), as a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, found that lead revision was favored with 100% certainty (extraction 76% and capping 24%).Conclusions
Overall there were minimal differences in survival with monitoring versus active lead management approaches. There is no evidence to support fluoroscopic screening for externalization of Riata or Riata ST leads.