Proton pump inhibitors may enhance the risk of citalopram- and escitalopram-associated sudden cardiac death among patients receiving hemodialysis.

PURPOSE: Polypharmacy is common in the hemodialysis population and increases the likelihood that patients will be exposed to clinically significant drug-drug interactions. Concurrent use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) with citalopram or escitalopram may potentiate the QT-prolonging effects of these selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors through pharmacodynamic and/or pharmacokinetic interactions. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the U.S. Renal Data System (2007-2017) and a new-user design to examine the differential risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) associated with citalopram/escitalopram initiation vs. sertraline initiation in the presence and absence of PPI use among adults receiving hemodialysis. We studied 72 559 patients:14 983 (21%) citalopram/escitalopram initiators using a PPI; 26 503 (36%) citalopram/escitalopram initiators not using a PPI;10 779 (15%) sertraline initiators using a PPI; and 20 294 (28%) sertraline initiators not using a PPI (referent). The outcome of interest was 1-year SCD. We used inverse probability of treatment weighted survival models to estimate weighted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Compared with sertraline initiators not using a PPI, citalopram/escitalopram initiators using a PPI had the numerically highest risk of SCD (HR [95% CI] = 1.31 [1.11-1.54]), followed by citalopram/escitalopram initiators not using a PPI (HR [95% CI] = 1.22 [1.06-1.41]). Sertraline initiators using a PPI had a similar risk of SCD compared with those not using a PPI (HR [95% CI] = 1.03 [0.85-1.26]). CONCLUSIONS: Existing PPI use may elevate the risk of SCD associated with citalopram or escitalopram initiation among hemodialysis patients.

Use of QT Prolonging Medications by Hemodialysis Patients and Individuals Without End-Stage Kidney Disease.

Background The rate of sudden cardiac death in the hemodialysis population exceeds that of the general population by >20-fold. Hemodialysis patients may be particularly susceptible to sudden cardiac death provoked by drug-induced QT prolongation because of their substantial cardiovascular disease burden, exposure to electrolyte shifts during dialysis, and extensive polypharmacy. However, population-specific data regarding the frequency and patterns of QT prolonging medication use are limited. Methods and Results We conducted a descriptive drug utilization study using 3 administrative databases, the United States Renal Data System, MarketScan, and Medicare claims. We characterized the extent and patterns of QT prolonging medication use by adult hemodialysis patients and individuals without end-stage kidney disease annually from 2012 to 2016. We also identified instances of high-risk QT prolonging medication use among hemodialysis patients. In total, 338 515 hemodialysis patients and 40.7 million individuals without end-stage kidney disease were studied. Annual utilization rates of QT prolonging medications with known torsades de pointes risk in hemodialysis patients were ~1.4 to ~2.5 times higher than utilization rates in individuals without end-stage kidney disease. Hemodialysis patients with demographic and clinical risk factors for drug-induced QT prolongation were exposed to medications with known torsades de pointes risk more often than patients without risk factors. Conclusions Hemodialysis patients use QT prolonging medications with known torsades de pointes risk more extensively than individuals without end-stage kidney disease. Given the widespread use and instances of high-risk prescribing, future studies evaluating the cardiac safety of these drugs in the hemodialysis population are needed.

Prescription of Guideline-Recommended Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Among Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure and Varying Degrees of Renal Function.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduce mortality in many patients with heart failure (HF), but the current use and effectiveness of ICD/CRT in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are uncertain. We examined associations between kidney function and guideline-recommended prescription of ICD/CRT in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry, a performance improvement program for hospitalized patients with HF. We compared differences in ICD and CRT prescription between the following categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; mL/min/1.73 m2): ≥60, 59 to 30, <30, and dialysis dependent. From 2008 through 2014, 26,286 patients were eligible for ICD or CRT, and 16,123(61%) had an eGFR <60. De novo ICD and CRT prescription in this group was low at 45% and 30.5%, respectively. Compared to patients with eGFR ≥60, patients with eGFR 30 to 59 were more likely to receive an ICD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.08, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.01 to 1.14), whereas dialysis patients were less likely (aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.76). Worse kidney function was associated with a decreased likelihood of CRT prescription (aOR 0.97 per 10 ml/min eGFR decrease, p = 0.03). During the study period, the likelihood of both ICD and CRT prescription increased over time among patients with CKD (ICD aOR 1.12, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.18; CRT aOR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.23, per year). Prescription of an ICT/CRT was associated with greater 1-year survival in all eGFR groups. In conclusion, there are significant CKD-based differences in prescription of ICD and CRT in HF. However, given the current state of evidence, it is unclear whether improved prescription of ICD and CRT in the CKD population will result in improvement in outcomes.

Improving ascertainment of sudden cardiac death in patients with end stage renal disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Data collected by the US Renal Data System (USRDS) identify sudden cardiac death (SCD) as the leading cause of death among hemodialysis patients. However, evidence suggests that clinical events captured on the USRDS death notification form may be inaccurate. A new method for classifying SCD was recently developed to enhance the accuracy of SCD classification. This study examined the performance characteristics of this refined definition using a cohort of hemodialysis patients who experienced a witnessed SCD as the reference standard. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 363 patients who experienced a witnessed SCD in US Gambro (DaVita) outpatient dialysis clinics. Sensitivity of SCD defined by death notification forms and SCD defined using additional administrative sources was compared. Clinical data recorded near time of death were also examined. RESULTS: Existing USRDS death notification forms reported 70.8% of witnessed SCD as "cardiac arrest/cause unknown" or "arrhythmia." The refined definition significantly improved identification to 83.8% of witnessed SCD events (P<0.001). Verified SCD cases that were not identified by either definition were more likely to be reported on the death notification form as death due to myocardial infarction, hyperkalemia, sepsis, malignancy, or unknown cause. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the death notification form alone, the refined SCD definition significantly improves the sensitivity of reporting of witnessed SCD occurring within outpatient hemodialysis clinics. More accurate reporting of cardiac events by clinicians and refinements to existing death notification forms may further improve recognition and understanding of SCD.