New York Heart Association class and the survival benefit from primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators: A pooled analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) reduce all-cause mortality by reducing sudden cardiac death. There are conflicting data regarding whether patients with more advanced heart failure derive ICD benefit owing to the competing risk of nonsudden death. METHODS: We performed a patient-level meta-analysis of New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II/III heart failure patients (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) from 4 primary prevention ICD trials (MADIT-I, MADIT-II, DEFINITE, SCD-HeFT). Bayesian-Weibull survival regression models were used to assess the impact of NYHA class on the relationship between ICD use and mortality. RESULTS: Of the 2,763 patients who met study criteria, 68% (n=1,867) were NYHA II and 52% (n=1,435) were randomized to an ICD. In a multivariable model including all study patients, the ICD reduced mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65, 95% posterior credibility interval [PCI]) 0.40-0.99). The interaction between NYHA class and the ICD on mortality was significant (posterior probability of no interaction=.036). In models including an interaction term for the NYHA class and ICD, the ICD reduced mortality among NYHA class II patients (HR 0.55, PCI 0.35-0.85), and the point estimate suggested reduced mortality in NYHA class III patients (HR 0.76, PCI 0.48-1.24), although this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Primary prevention ICDs reduce mortality in NYHA class II patients and trend toward reducing mortality in the heterogeneous group of NYHA class III patients. Improved risk stratification tools are required to guide patient selection and shared decision making among NYHA class III primary prevention ICD candidates.

Predicting appropriate shocks in patients with heart failure: Patient level meta-analysis from SCD-HeFT and MADIT II.

BACKGROUND: No precise tools exist to predict appropriate shocks in patients with a primary prevention ICD. We sought to identify characteristics predictive of appropriate shocks in patients with a primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). METHODS: Using patient-level data from the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT II) and the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT), we identified patients with any appropriate shock. Clinical and demographic variables were included in a logistic regression model to predict appropriate shocks. RESULTS: There were 1,463 patients randomized to an ICD, and 285 (19%) had ≥1 appropriate shock over a median follow-up of 2.59 years. Compared with patients without appropriate ICD shocks, patients who received any appropriate shock tended to have more severe heart failure. In a multiple logistic regression model, predictors of appropriate shocks included NYHA class (NYHA II vs. I: OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07-2.55; NYHA III vs. I: OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.10-2.76), lower LVEF (per 1% change) (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06), absence of beta-blocker therapy (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.23-2.12), and single chamber ICD (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.13-2.45). CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis of patient level data from MADIT-II and SCD-HeFT, higher NYHA class, lower LVEF, no beta-blocker therapy, and single chamber ICD (vs. dual chamber) were significant predictors of appropriate shocks.

Orthostatic Hypotension in the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) Blood Pressure Trial: Prevalence, Incidence, and Prognostic Significance.

Orthostatic hypotension (OH) is associated with hypertension and diabetes mellitus. However, in populations with both hypertension and diabetes mellitus, its prevalence, the effect of intensive versus standard systolic blood pressure (BP) targets on incident OH, and its prognostic significance are unclear. In 4266 participants in the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) BP trial, seated BP was measured 3×, followed by readings every minute for 3 minutes after standing. Orthostatic BP change, calculated as the minimum standing minus the mean seated systolic BP and diastolic BP, was assessed at baseline, 12 months, and 48 months. The relationship between OH and clinical outcomes (total and cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, heart failure hospitalization or death and the primary composite outcome of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death) was assessed using proportional hazards analysis. Consensus OH, defined by orthostatic decline in systolic BP ≥20 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥10 mm Hg, occurred at ≥1 time point in 20% of participants. Neither age nor systolic BP treatment target (intensive, <120 mm Hg versus standard, <140 mm Hg) was related to OH incidence. Over a median follow-up of 46.9 months, OH was associated with increased risk of total death (hazard ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.36) and heart failure death/hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.85, 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.93), but not with the primary outcome or other prespecified outcomes. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension, OH was common, not associated with intensive versus standard BP treatment goals, and predicted increased mortality and heart failure events.

Effect of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering on Incident Atrial Fibrillation and P-Wave Indices in the ACCORD Blood Pressure Trial.

BACKGROUND: There are no proven strategies to prevent atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). We compared standard blood pressure (BP) lowering vs. intensive BP lowering in reducing incidence of AF or P-wave indices (PWI-ECG markers of left atrial abnormality that are considered intermediate phenotypes of AF) in patients with T2DM. METHODS: We analyzed data from the ACCORD BP trial-a randomized controlled nonblinded trial (2001-2009) which randomized patients with T2DM and systolic BP (SBP) 130-180mm Hg on ≤3 antihypertensive medications aged 40-79 years with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or aged 55-79 years with subclinical CVD or ≥2 CVD risk factors to standard BP lowering (SBP <140mm Hg) vs. intensive BP lowering (SBP <120mm Hg). The primary outcome was a composite of incident AF and PWI. RESULTS: Data from 3,087 participants (mean age, 62.2 years; women, 48.2%; non-White, 39.2%) were analyzed. During a mean follow-up of 4.4 years, the primary outcome occurred in 1,063 participants (incidence rate, 84.5 per 1,000 person-years in the standard-therapy group vs. 73.9 per 1,000 person-years in the intensive-therapy group). The adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of intensive-therapy group for the primary outcome and for incident PWI alone were 0.87 (0.77-0.98), P = 0.02 and 0.87 (0.76-0.98), P = 0.02, respectively. The effect of intensive therapy on the incidence of AF alone did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM, intensive BP lowering reduces the incidence of the composite outcome of AF and PWI, suggesting a potential benefit from stringent BP control in patients with T2DM. clinical trials registration Trial Number NCT00000620.

Effect of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering on Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Blood Pressure Trial.

UNLABELLED: Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), a marker of cardiac end-organ damage, is a common complication of hypertension. Regression of LVH is achievable by sustained lowering of systolic blood pressure (BP). However, it is unknown whether a strategy aimed at lowering BP beyond that recommended would lower the risk of LVH. We examined the effect of intensive (systolic BP<120 mm Hg), compared with standard (systolic BP<140 mm Hg), BP lowering on the risk of LVH in 4331 patients with diabetes mellitus from the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) BP trial, a randomized controlled trial. The outcome measures were electrocardiographic LVH defined by Cornell voltage (binary variable) and mean Cornell index (continuous variable). The baseline prevalence of LVH (5.3% versus 5.4%; P=0.91) and the mean Cornell index (1456 versus 1470 µV; P=0.45) were similar in the intensive (n=2154) and standard (n=2177) BP-lowering arms, respectively. However, after median follow-up of 4.4 years, intensive, compared with standard, BP lowering was associated with a 39% lower risk of LVH (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.61[0.43, 0.88]; P=0.008) and a significantly lower adjusted mean Cornell index (1352 versus 1447 µV; P<0.001). The lower risk of LVH associated with intensive BP lowering during follow-up was because of more regression of baseline LVH and lower rate of developing new LVH, compared with standard BP lowering. No interactions by age, sex, or race were observed. These results provide evidence that targeting a systolic BP of <120 mm Hg when compared with <140 mm Hg in patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus produces a greater reduction in LVH. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00000620.

Survival benefit of the primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator among older patients: does age matter? An analysis of pooled data from 5 clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The impact of patient age on the risks of death or rehospitalization after primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 5 major ICD trials were merged: the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial I (MADIT-I), the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT), the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT-II), the Defibrillators in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy Treatment Evaluation Trial (DEFINITE), and the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT). Median age at enrollment was 62 (interquartile range 53-70) years. Compared with their younger counterparts, older patients had a greater burden of comorbid illness. In unadjusted exploratory analyses, ICD recipients were less likely to die than nonrecipients in all age groups: among patients aged <55 years: hazard ratio 0.48, 95% posterior credible interval 0.33 to 0.69; among patients aged 55 to 64 years: hazard ratio 0.69, 95% posterior credible interval 0.53 to 0.90; among patients aged 65 to 74 years: hazard ratio 0.67, 95% posterior credible interval, 0.53 to 0.85; and among patients aged ≥75 years: hazard ratio 0.54, 95% posterior credible interval 0.37 to 0.78. Sample sizes were limited among patients aged ≥75 years. In adjusted Bayesian-Weibull modeling, point estimates indicate ICD efficacy persists but is attenuated with increasing age. There was evidence of an interaction between age and ICD treatment on survival (two-sided posterior tail probability of no interaction <0.01). Using an adjusted Bayesian logistic regression model, there was no evidence of an interaction between age and ICD treatment on rehospitalization (two-sided posterior tail probability of no interaction 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, the survival benefit of the ICD exists but is attenuated with increasing age. The latter finding may be because of the higher burden of comorbid illness, competing causes of death, or limited sample size of older patients. There was no evidence that age modifies the association between ICD treatment and rehospitalization.

Outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator use in patients with comorbidities: results from a combined analysis of 4 randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine if the benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) is modulated by medical comorbidity. BACKGROUND: Primary prevention ICDs improve survival in patients at risk for sudden cardiac death. Their benefit in patients with significant comorbid illness has not been demonstrated. METHODS: Original, patient-level datasets from MADIT I (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial I), MADIT II, DEFINITE (Defibrillators in Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Treatment Evaluation), and SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial) were combined. Patients in the combined population (N = 3,348) were assessed with respect to the following comorbidities: smoking, pulmonary disease, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, atrial fibrillation, ischemic heart disease, and chronic kidney disease. The primary outcome was overall mortality, using the hazard ratio (HR) of time to death for patients receiving an ICD versus no ICD by extent of medical comorbidity, and adjusted for age, sex, race, left ventricular ejection fraction, use of antiarrhythmic drugs, beta-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. RESULTS: Overall, 25% of patients (n = 830) had <2 comorbid conditions versus 75% (n = 2,518) with significant comorbidity (≥2). The unadjusted hazard of death for patients with an ICD versus no ICD was significantly lower, but this effect was less for patients with ≥2 comorbidities (unadjusted HR: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.61 to 0.84) compared with those with <2 comorbidities (unadjusted HR: 0.59; 95% confidence interval: 0.40 to 0.87). After adjustment, the benefit of an ICD decreased with increasing number of comorbidities (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with extensive comorbid medical illnesses may experience less benefit from primary prevention ICDs than those with less comorbidity; implantation should be carefully considered in sick patients. Further study of ICDs in medically complex patients is warranted.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in CKD: a meta-analysis of patient-level data from 3 randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) among patients with chronic kidney disease is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis of patient-level data from randomized controlled trials. SETTING & POPULATION: Patients with symptomatic heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction<35%. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: From 7 available randomized controlled studies with patient-level data, we selected studies with available data for important covariates. Studies without patient-level data for baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were excluded. INTERVENTION: Primary prevention ICD versus usual care effect modification by eGFR. OUTCOMES: Mortality, rehospitalizations, and effect modification by eGFR. RESULTS: We included data from the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial I (MADIT-I), MADIT-II, and the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT). 2,867 patients were included; 36.3% had eGFR<60 mL/min/1.73m2. Kaplan-Meier estimate of the probability of death during follow-up was 43.3% for 1,334 patients receiving usual care and 35.8% for 1,533 ICD recipients. After adjustment for baseline differences, there was evidence that the survival benefit of ICDs in comparison to usual care depends on eGFR (posterior probability for null interaction P<0.001). The ICD was associated with survival benefit for patients with eGFR≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (adjusted HR, 0.49; 95% posterior credible interval, 0.24-0.95), but not for patients with eGFR<60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (adjusted HR, 0.80; 95% posterior credible interval, 0.40-1.53). eGFR did not modify the association between the ICD and rehospitalizations. LIMITATIONS: Few patients with eGFR<30 mL/min/1.73 m2 were available. Differences in trial-to-trial measurement techniques may lead to residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in baseline eGFR decrease the survival benefit associated with the ICD. These findings should be confirmed by additional studies specifically targeting patients with varying eGFRs.

From expert-derived user needs to user-perceived ease of use and usefulness: a two-phase mixed-methods evaluation framework.

Underspecified user needs and frequent lack of a gold standard reference are typical barriers to technology evaluation. To address this problem, this paper presents a two-phase evaluation framework involving usability experts (phase 1) and end-users (phase 2). In phase 1, a cross-system functionality alignment between expert-derived user needs and system functions was performed to inform the choice of "the best available" comparison system to enable a cognitive walkthrough in phase 1 and a comparative effectiveness evaluation in phase 2. During phase 2, five quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods are mixed to assess usability: time-motion analysis, software log, questionnaires - System Usability Scale and the Unified Theory of Acceptance of Use of Technology, think-aloud protocols, and unstructured interviews. Each method contributes data for a unique measure (e.g., time motion analysis contributes task-completion-time; software log contributes action transition frequency). The measures are triangulated to yield complementary insights regarding user-perceived ease-of-use, functionality integration, anxiety during use, and workflow impact. To illustrate its use, we applied this framework in a formative evaluation of a software called Integrated Model for Patient Care and Clinical Trials (IMPACT). We conclude that this mixed-methods evaluation framework enables an integrated assessment of user needs satisfaction and user-perceived usefulness and usability of a novel design. This evaluation framework effectively bridges the gap between co-evolving user needs and technology designs during iterative prototyping and is particularly useful when it is difficult for users to articulate their needs for technology support due to the lack of a baseline.

Using software to elicit user needs for clinical research visit scheduling.

User needs understanding is critical for developing useful and usable clinical research decision support. Existing methods largely depend on self-reporting and often fail to elicit implicit or fine-grained user needs. We hypothesized that functional software would address this problem by presenting to users existing technology while simultaneously encouraging users to optimize workflow. Using clinical research visit scheduling as an example, we used a piece of software under development that was called IMPACT to reveal user needs iteratively. The identified user needs explained why most clinical research coordinators still rely on paper to schedule clinical research visits. The common user needs themes such as information completeness for software to be useful may generalize to other clinical decision support. This paper contributes valuable firsthand knowledge about user needs for decision support for clinical research visit scheduling among clinical research coordinators and a generalizable methodology for collecting and analyzing software usage data to inform user needs elicitation.

Understanding facilitators and barriers to reengineering the clinical research enterprise in community-based practice settings.

Solutions are employed to support clinical research trial tasks in community-based practice settings. Using the IT Implementation Framework (ITIF), an integrative framework intended to guide the synthesis of theoretical perspectives for planning multi-level interventions to enhance IT use, we sought to understand the barriers and facilitators to clinical research in community-based practice settings preliminary to implementing new informatics solutions for improving clinical research infrastructure. The studies were conducted in practices within the Columbia University Clinical Trials Network. A mixed-method approach, including surveys, interviews, time-motion studies, and observations was used. The data collected, which incorporates predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors in IT use, were analyzed according to each phase of ITIF. Themes identified in the first phase of ITIF were 1) processes and tools to support clinical trial research and 2) clinical research peripheral to patient care processes. Not all of the problems under these themes were found to be amenable to IT solutions. Using the multi-level orientation of the ITIF, we set forth strategies beyond IT solutions that can have an impact on reengineering clinical research tasks in practice-based settings. Developing strategies to target enabling and reinforcing factors, which focus on organizational factors, and the motivation of the practice at large to use IT solutions to integrate clinical research tasks with patient care processes, is most challenging. The ITIF should be used to consider both IT and non-IT solutions concurrently for reengineering of clinical research in community-based practice settings.

An Integrated Model for Patient Care and Clinical Trials (IMPACT) to support clinical research visit scheduling workflow for future learning health systems.

We describe a clinical research visit scheduling system that can potentially coordinate clinical research visits with patient care visits and increase efficiency at clinical sites where clinical and research activities occur simultaneously. Participatory Design methods were applied to support requirements engineering and to create this software called Integrated Model for Patient Care and Clinical Trials (IMPACT). Using a multi-user constraint satisfaction and resource optimization algorithm, IMPACT automatically synthesizes temporal availability of various research resources and recommends the optimal dates and times for pending research visits. We conducted scenario-based evaluations with 10 clinical research coordinators (CRCs) from diverse clinical research settings to assess the usefulness, feasibility, and user acceptance of IMPACT. We obtained qualitative feedback using semi-structured interviews with the CRCs. Most CRCs acknowledged the usefulness of IMPACT features. Support for collaboration within research teams and interoperability with electronic health records and clinical trial management systems were highly requested features. Overall, IMPACT received satisfactory user acceptance and proves to be potentially useful for a variety of clinical research settings. Our future work includes comparing the effectiveness of IMPACT with that of existing scheduling solutions on the market and conducting field tests to formally assess user adoption.

Centralized, stepped, patient preference-based treatment for patients with post-acute coronary syndrome depression: CODIACS vanguard randomized controlled trial.

IMPORTANCE: Controversy remains about whether depression can be successfully managed after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and the costs and benefits of doing so. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of providing post-ACS depression care on depressive symptoms and health care costs. DESIGN: Multicenter randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Patients were recruited from 2 private and 5 academic ambulatory centers across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 150 patients with elevated depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory [BDI] score ≥10) 2 to 6 months after an ACS, recruited between March 18, 2010, and January 9, 2012. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to 6 months of centralized depression care (patient preference for problem-solving treatment given via telephone or the Internet, pharmacotherapy, both, or neither), stepped every 6 to 8 weeks (active treatment group; n = 73), or to locally determined depression care after physician notification about the patient's depressive symptoms (usual care group; n = 77). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in depressive symptoms during 6 months and total health care costs. RESULTS: Depressive symptoms decreased significantly more in the active treatment group than in the usual care group (differential change between groups, -3.5 BDI points; 95% CI, -6.1 to -0.7; P = .01). Although mental health care estimated costs were higher for active treatment than for usual care, overall health care estimated costs were not significantly different (difference adjusting for confounding, -$325; 95% CI, -$2639 to $1989; P = .78). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with post-ACS depression, active treatment had a substantial beneficial effect on depressive symptoms. This kind of depression care is feasible, effective, and may be cost-neutral within 6 months; therefore, it should be tested in a large phase 3 pragmatic trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01032018.

Survival benefit of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy after myocardial infarction: does time to implant matter? A meta-analysis using patient-level data from 4 clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Whether there is an optimal time to place an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) more than 40 days after myocardial infarction (MI) in guideline-eligible patients is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of time from MI to randomization on mortality, rehospitalizations, and complications. METHODS: Individual data on patients enrolled in 9 primary prevention ICD trials were provided. Clinical trials were eligible for the current analysis if they enrolled patients with an MI more than 40 days prior to randomization to primary prevention ICD therapy vs usual care: Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial I, Multicenter UnSustained Tachyardia Trial, Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II, and Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial. RESULTS: ICD recipients died less frequently than nonrecipients at 5 years across all subgroups of time from MI to randomization. In unadjusted Cox proportional hazards regression, a survival benefit was evident in most subgroups. Adjusted Bayesian Weibull survival modeling yielded hazard ratio (HR) 0.50, 95% posterior credible interval (PCI) 0.20-1.25 41-180 days after MI; HR 0.98, 95% PCI 0.37-2.37 181-365 days after MI; HR 0.22, 95% PCI 0.07-0.59>1-2 years after MI; HR 0.42, 95% PCI 0.17-0.90>2-5 years after MI; HR 0.55, 95% PCI 0.25-1.15>5-10 years after MI; and HR 0.48, 95% PCI 0.20-1.02>10 years after MI. There was no evidence of an interaction between time from MI and all-cause mortality, rehospitalizations, or complications. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, there was scant evidence that the efficacy of primary prevention ICD therapy depends on time to implantation more than 40 days after MI. Similarly, there was no evidence that the risks of rehospitalizations or complications depend on time more than 40 days after MI.

Effect of left ventricular ejection fraction and QRS duration on the survival benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: meta-analysis of primary prevention trials.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are recommended for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with left ventricular dysfunction, but it is unclear whether treatment benefits are diminished in patients with very low baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (<25%) or increased in those with prolonged QRS duration (>120 ms). OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of very low LVEF and prolonged QRS duration on the mortality benefits of ICD therapy. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of primary prevention randomized controlled trials comparing ICD and standard medical therapy. All-cause mortality hazard ratios (HRs) in subgroups according to thresholds of 25% for LVEF and 120 ms for QRS duration were extracted from published reports or contributed by trial investigators and synthesized. RESULTS: There was no significant difference of ICD effectiveness in LVEF subgroups of 25%-35% (random effects HR 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.94) vs<25% (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.55-0.93). Results were also similar in the narrow and wide QRS subgroups (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.68-0.90 and HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51-0.95, respectively). Within the LVEF<25% and wide QRS subgroups, there was large heterogeneity driven by the Defibrillator in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial that included patients with early post-myocardial infarction and its results (HR 1.49; 95% CI 0.84-2.68 and HR 1.51; 95% CI 0.83-2.83, respectively) differed significantly from other trials (P = .008 and P = .01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: LVEF values and QRS duration do not appear to directly modify the survival benefit of ICD in patients with baseline LVEF<35%. However, patients with a recent myocardial infarction do not benefit from ICD, especially when they have LVEF<25% and/or wide QRS.

Diabetes control among Hispanics in the action to control cardiovascular risk in diabetes trial.

BACKGROUND: Hispanics in the United States represent diverse racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups, and manifest heterogeneous cardiovascular risks including diabetes. It is not known if there are residual differences in the control of diabetes among Hispanic groups given uniform access to diabetes care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate glucose control differences among Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Dominicans receiving substantial diabetes care and support in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial comparing two treatment strategies: intensive, targeting glycated hemoglobin below 6.0 %, and standard, targeting glycated hemoglobin between 7.0 % and 7.9 %. PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred and sixteen Hispanic and 6066 non-Hispanic white participants were recruited from 77 clinical sites across the United States and Canada. There were 243 Mexicans, 199 Puerto Ricans, and 150 Dominicans; and 135 of these Hispanic groups were born in the United States. MAIN MEASURE: Glycated hemoglobin RESULTS: Compared to Puerto Ricans, Mexicans were more likely (HR=1.38, CI:0.90-2.10) and Dominicans as likely (HR=1.01, CI:0.66-1.54) to achieve glycated hemoglobin goal in the intensive arm. Participants born in the United States achieved glycated hemoglobin goal at a higher rate than those born elsewhere (HR=1.57, CI:0.99-2.51 in the intensive arm, HR=1.51, CI:0.95-2.43 in the standard arm). These differences were not statistically significant. In the intensive arm, Puerto Ricans (OR=0.47, CI:0.31-0.71), and Dominicans (OR=0.41, CI:0.26-0.66) were less likely than non-Hispanic whites to achieve glycated hemoglobin goal, whereas the difference between non-Hispanic whites and Mexicans was not statistically significant, (OR=0.66, CI:0.43-1.02). CONCLUSIONS: Hispanic groups, given access to comprehensive diabetes care, differed from each other non-significantly and had a variable divergence from non-Hispanic whites in achieving intensive glycated hemoglobin goal. These differences, if confirmed, could be due to such factors as variable acculturation and functional health literacy levels that were not measured in the ACCORD trial, but should be further explored in future studies.

Design and baseline data from the vanguard of the Comparison of Depression Interventions after Acute Coronary Syndrome (CODIACS) randomized controlled trial.

This paper describes the rationale and design of the vanguard for the Comparison of Depression Interventions after Acute Coronary Syndrome (CODIACS), a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of a patient preference-based, stepped care protocol for persistent depressive symptoms after acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The overall aim of the vanguard phase was to determine whether the patient-preference, stepped care protocol, which is based on the intervention used in the recent Coronary Psychosocial Evaluation Studies (COPES) trial, was feasible in patients with recent ACS who were recruited from 5 geographically diverse sites. Innovative design features of this trial include randomization to either initial patient-preference of treatment or to a referred care arm in which the primary care provider decided upon care. Additionally, delivery of psychotherapy was accomplished by telephone, or webcam, depending upon patient preference. The vanguard phase provides estimates of eligibility and screening/enrollment ratios, patient acceptance of screening, and retention. In this report, we describe the innovative features and the baseline results of the vanguard phase of CODIACS. The data from this vanguard study will be used to finalize planning for a large, phase III clinical trial designed to evaluate the effect of treatment on depressive symptoms, coronary events, and death.

Using EHRs to integrate research with patient care: promises and challenges.

Clinical research is the foundation for advancing the practice of medicine. However, the lack of seamless integration between clinical research and patient care workflow impedes recruitment efficiency, escalates research costs, and hence threatens the entire clinical research enterprise. Increased use of electronic health records (EHRs) holds promise for facilitating this integration but must surmount regulatory obstacles. Among the unintended consequences of current research oversight are barriers to accessing patient information for prescreening and recruitment, coordinating scheduling of clinical and research visits, and reconciling information about clinical and research drugs. We conclude that the EHR alone cannot overcome barriers in conducting clinical trials and comparative effectiveness research. Patient privacy and human subject protection policies should be clarified at the local level to exploit optimally the full potential of EHRs, while continuing to ensure participant safety. Increased alignment of policies that regulate the clinical and research use of EHRs could help fulfill the vision of more efficiently obtaining clinical research evidence to improve human health.

Women, but not men, have prolonged QT interval if depressed after an acute coronary syndrome.

AIMS: Depression is a mortality risk marker for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. We hypothesized that the QT interval, a predictor for risk of sudden cardiac death, was related to depressive symptoms in ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed an analysis of admission electrocardiograms from hospitalized patients with unstable angina or non-ST elevation myocardial infarction from two prospective observational studies of depression in ACS. Depressive symptoms were assessed with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and depression was defined as BDI score ≥10, compared with <5. Patients with QRS duration ≥120 ms and/or who were prescribed antidepressants were excluded. QT intervals were adjusted for heart rate by two methods. Our analyses included 243 men (40.0% with BDI ≥10) and 139 women (62.0% with BDI ≥ 10). Among women, average QT corrected by Fridericia's method (QTcF) was 435.4 ± 26.6 ms in the depressed group, vs. 408.6 ± 24.3 ms in the non-depressed group (P< 0.01). However, among men, average QTcF was not significantly different between the depressed and non-depressed groups (415.4 ± 23.6 vs. 412.0 ± 25.8 ms, P= 0.29). In multivariable analyses that included hypertension, diabetes, ACS type, left ventricular ejection fraction <0.40, and use of QT-prolonging medication, there was a statistically significant interaction between depressive symptoms and gender (P< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this ACS sample, prolongation of the QT interval was associated with depressive symptoms in women, but not in men. Further investigation of the mechanism of the relationship between depression and abnormal cardiac repolarization, particularly in women, is warranted to develop treatment strategies.