Assessing physician knowledge regarding indications for a primary prevention implantable defibrillator and potential barriers for referral.

BACKGROUND: Although there is clear evidence to demonstrate that primary prevention implantable defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in high-risk patients, ICDs are underutilized. Limited data exist assessing referring physicians' knowledge about guideline indications and attitudes towards ICDs, which may influence decision for referral. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Arrhythmia Working Group from the Alberta Cardiovascular and Stroke Strategic Clinical Network developed a web-based survey consisting of case scenarios regarding primary prevention ICD indications and a list of barriers for referral to aid in the design of a complex device care pathway. We invited referring physicians to participate in the survey including internists and cardiologists and cardiology residents. The survey was completed by 109 of 799 (response rate = 14%) of physicians. Of those, 55% were internists, 32% cardiologists, and 13% cardiology residents. The majority of physicians were male (62%), practicing in a university hospital (66%). Overall, complete guideline-concordant answers were provided by 34% of physicians. In multivariable analysis, predictors of complete guideline concordance were being a cardiologist (odd ratio [OR] 5.9, confidence interval [CI] 2.1-16.4, P = 0.001) and cardiology resident (OR 6.7, CI 1.7-27.3, P = 0.007). The most common barrier for referral for internists was lack of confidence in knowledge of guideline recommendations; while cardiologists reported concerns about cost-effectiveness and cardiology residents were most concerned with inappropriate shocks. CONCLUSION: Knowledge regarding indications for primary prevention ICD is limited and varies significantly among referring physicians. The barriers for referral differ among physician groups and addressing these identified barriers may help to improve appropriate ICD utilization.

A Population-Based Study Evaluating Sex Differences in Patients Presenting to Emergency Departments With Syncope.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether sex-specific differences in management and outcomes of syncope patients exist. BACKGROUND: Syncope is a common presentation to the emergency department (ED) and reason for hospital admission. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years of age, presenting to the ED with a primary diagnosis of syncope in Alberta, Canada, from January 1, 2007 to December 12, 2015 were included. ED records were linked to hospital records to identify patients admitted versus discharged from the ED. Outcomes included 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality. Multivariable mixed-effect logistic regression assessed the association between sex and outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 63,274 ED syncope patients, 33,986 (53.7%) were women and 29,288 (46.3%) were men (p < 0.01). Compared with men, women were younger (51.6 ± 23.8 years for women vs. 55.1 ± 20.9 years for men; p < 0.001), less likely to arrive by ambulance (48.4% women vs. 51.7% men; p < 0.001), and had fewer comorbidities (67.9% women vs. 61.8% men with Charlson comorbidity score = 0; p < 0.001). Overall, 12.6% women and 16.8% men were admitted to hospital (p < 0.001). Regardless of discharge status, women had lower mortality rates (30-day admitted: 2.9% women and 4.4% men; p < 0.001; discharged: 0.2% women and 0.4% men; p < 0.001; and 1-year admitted: 12.6% women and 16.1% men; p < 0.001; discharged: 2.4% women and 3.7% men; p < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, men were associated with 1.4-fold higher odds of death at 1 year. This was unchanged regardless of discharge status. CONCLUSIONS: Although women are more likely than men to present to the ED with syncope, they are less likely to be admitted to hospital. Mortality rates are lower for women, regardless of discharge status.

A Population-Based Study of Device Eligibility, Use, and Reasons for Nonimplantation in Patients at Heart Function Clinics.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is lifesaving; however, real-world data regarding the proportion of patients eligible for a primary prevention ICD and subsequent use remain sparse. This study evaluated rates of primary prevention ICD eligibility and use among patients in heart function clinics (HFCs) and to identify reasons for nonimplantation. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of patients seen at HFCs in Alberta, Canada, from 2013 to 2015. Demographics, comorbidities, clinical indications, and reasons for nonimplantation were abstracted. Eligibility was defined according to the 2008 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society ICD, 2012 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society Focused Update, and 2013 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy guidelines. Logistic regression was used to calculate an odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for predictors of nonimplantation. RESULTS: Among 1239 patients in HFCs, the median age was 70 years (interquartile range, 59-80), 67% were male, and the median left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.40 (interquartile range, 0.28-0.53). Overall, 45% of patients (n = 553) met guideline criteria for an ICD, and of those, 36% (n = 198) received a device. Among device nonrecipients, 52% (n = 185) had no documented reason for nonimplantation. The most common reason for nonimplantation among nonrecipients was patient preference (48%). Predictors associated with nonimplantation were age more than 75 years (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.31-2.82) and history of cancer (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.07-4.78). At 3 years follow-up, 27% of nonrecipients were deceased. CONCLUSIONS: We found that one-third of patients who met guideline criteria received an ICD and that documentation for nonimplantation was poor.

CONTEXTE: Le défibrillateur cardioverteur implantable (DCI) sauve des vies. Or, les données recueillies dans la pratique réelle concernant le pourcentage de patients admissibles à l'implantation d'un tel dispositif en prévention primaire et l'utilisation subséquente de ce dispositif sont très limitées. Cette étude a évalué le taux de patients admissibles à la pose d'un DCI en prévention primaire et le taux d'utilisation de ce dispositif chez des patients traités en clinique de cardiologie. Elle a également recensé les motifs de non-implantation. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Une étude rétrospective a été réalisée chez des patients traités de 2013 à 2015 dans plusieurs cliniques de cardiologie de l'Alberta, au Canada. Les données relatives aux caractéristiques démographiques, aux comorbidités, aux indications cliniques et aux motifs de la non-implantation ont été extraites. L'admissibilité était définie en fonction des lignes directrices de 2008 de l'American College of Cardiology, de l'American Heart Association et de la Heart Rhythm Society sur le DCI, de leur mise à jour ciblée en 2012 et des lignes directrices de 2013 de la Société canadienne de cardiologie sur la thérapie de resynchronisation cardiaque. Une régression logistique a été utilisée pour calculer le risque relatif approché (RRA) et l'intervalle de confiance (IC) à 95 % associés aux facteurs de prédiction de la non-implantation. RÉSULTATS: L'âge médian des 1 239 patients traités en clinique de cardiologie était de 70 ans (plage interquartile : 59 ­ 80 ans); 67 % d'entre eux étaient des hommes, et la fraction d'éjection ventriculaire gauche médiane était de 0,40 (plage interquartile : 0,28 ­ 0,53). D'une manière générale, 45 % des patients (n = 553) répondaient aux critères énoncés dans les lignes directrices pour la pose d'un DCI, et 36 % d'entre eux (n = 198) ont reçu un dispositif. Parmi les patients qui n'ont pas reçu de dispositif, aucun motif justifiant la non-implantation n'a été documenté chez 52 % des patients (n = 185); chez les 48 % des patients restants, le motif le plus courant pour justifier la non-implantation a été la préférence du patient. Les facteurs de prédiction associés à la non-implantation ont été l'âge (plus de 75 ans; RRA : 1,92; IC à 95 % : 1,31 ­ 2,82) et les antécédents de cancer (RRA : 2,26; IC à 95 % : 1,07 ­ 4,78). Après 3 ans de suivi, 27 % des patients qui n'avaient pas reçu de dispositif étaient décédés. CONCLUSIONS: Nous avons constaté que le tiers des patients qui répondaient aux critères énoncés dans les lignes directrices ont reçu un DCI et que les motifs justifiant la non-implantation étaient mal documentés.

A Population-Based Study of Adherence to Guideline Recommendations and Appropriate-Use Criteria for Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators.

Studies evaluating physician adherence to guideline recommendations for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy are sparse, and none exist for the application of appropriate-use criteria (AUC) in clinical practice. As part of a quality improvement initiative, a review of all ICD procedures was performed from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016 in Alberta, Canada, to evaluate the proportion of patients receiving appropriate ICD therapy and to identify reasons for nonadherence. Our device-implant process involves an electrophysiologist or implanting cardiologist evaluation, reminders of ICD eligibility criteria on the device requisition, and peer-review consensus. Implants were classified according to the 2008 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society (ACC/AHA/HRS) ICD guidelines, 2013 Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) guidelines, and 2013 AUC. There were 1,300 ICD procedures performed, and the mean age was 63.8 ± 12.9 years; 79% were male; the mean ejection fraction was 0.32 ± 0.13, and 69% were for primary prevention. Among all implants, < 1% were discordant with American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society (ACC/AHA/HRS) recommendations. Among CRT implants, 10% were inconsistent with Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) recommendations. According to AUC, 92% of implants were appropriate. Reasons for nonadherence to ACC/AHA/HRS recommendations included QRS width < 120 msec (n = 3), LVEF > 0.35 (n = 2) and recent myocardial infarction (MI) (n = 1). The most common reason for nonadherence to AUC was the absence of criteria for classification (n = 57, 4%). In this population-based study, we found that a process of specialist evaluation, eligibility reminders on device forms, and peer-review consensus may improve adherence to guideline recommendations and AUC for ICD therapy.