Influence of Multimorbidity on Burden and Appropriateness of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapies.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether burden of multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) influences the risk of receiving inappropriate vs appropriate device therapies. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Seven US healthcare delivery systems. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with left ventricular systolic dysfunction receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention. MEASUREMENTS: Data on 24 comorbid conditions were captured from electronic health records and categorized into quartiles of comorbidity burden (0-3, 4-5, 6-7 and 8-16). Incidence of ICD therapies (shock and antitachycardia pacing [ATP] therapies), including appropriateness, was collected for 3 years after implantation. Outcomes included time to first ICD therapy, total ICD therapy burden, and risk of inappropriate vs appropriate ICD therapy. RESULTS: Among 2235 patients (mean age = 69 ± 11 years, 75% men), the median number of comorbidities was 6 (interquartile range = 4-8), with 98% having at least two comorbidities. During a mean 2.2 years of follow-up, 18.3% of patients experienced at least one appropriate therapy and 9.9% experienced at least one inappropriate therapy. Higher comorbidity burden was associated with an increased risk of first inappropriate therapy (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.94 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 1.14-3.31] for 4-5 comorbidities; HR = 2.25 [95% CI = 1.25-4.05] for 6-7 comorbidities; and HR = 2.91 [95% CI = 1.54-5.50] for 8-16 comorbidities). Participants with 8-16 comorbidities had a higher total burden of ICD therapy (adjusted relative risk [RR] = 2.12 [95% CI = 1.43-3.16]), a higher burden of inappropriate therapy (RR = 3.39 [95% CI = 1.67-6.86]), and a higher risk of receiving inappropriate vs appropriate therapy (RR = 1.74 [95% CI = 1.07-2.82]). Comorbidity burden was not significantly associated with receipt of appropriate ICD therapies. Patterns were similar when separately examining shock or ATP therapies. CONCLUSIONS: In primary prevention ICD recipients, MCC burden was independently associated with an increased risk of inappropriate but not appropriate device therapies. Comorbidity burden should be considered when engaging patients in shared decision making about ICD implantation.

Age and sex differences in long-term outcomes following implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement in contemporary clinical practice: findings from the Cardiovascular Research Network.

BACKGROUND: Patient sex and age may influence rates of death after receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for primary prevention. Differences in outcomes other than mortality and whether these differences vary by heart failure symptoms, etiology, and left ventricular ejection fraction are not well characterized. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 2954 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤0.35 undergoing first-time implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for primary prevention within the Cardiovascular Research Network; 769 patients (26%) were women, and 2827 (62%) were aged >65 years. In a median follow-up of 2.4 years, outcome rates per 1000 patient-years were 109 for death, 438 for hospitalization, and 111 for heart failure hospitalizations. Procedure-related complications occurred in 8.36%. In multivariable models, women had significantly lower risks of death (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.80) and heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98) and higher risks for complications (hazard ratio 1.38, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.90) than men; patients aged >65 years had higher risks of death (hazard ratio 1.55, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.86) and heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio 1.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.49) than younger patients. Age and sex differences were generally consistent in strata according to symptoms, etiology, and severity of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, except the higher risk of complications in women, which differed by New York Heart Association classification (P=0.03 for sex-New York Heart Association interaction), and the risk of heart failure hospitalization in older patients, which differed by etiology of heart failure (P=0.05 for age-etiology interaction). CONCLUSIONS: The burden of adverse outcomes after receipt of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for primary prevention is substantial and varies according to patient age and sex. These differences in outcome generally do not vary according to baseline heart failure characteristics.

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.