Cardiovascular Hospitalizations and Resource Use Following Atrial Fibrillation Ablation.

Background Over the next few years, atrial fibrillation (AF)-related morbidity and costs will increase significantly. Thus, it is prudent to examine the impact of AF treatment on health care resource use. This study examined the impact of AF ablation on hospitalization, length of stay, and resource use for patients undergoing AF ablation in a multihospital system. Methods and Results In an observational analysis, outcomes of total, cardiovascular, and AF hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and length of stay were compared for 3417 patients between 12 months before and 24 months following AF ablation. Use of electrical cardioversions and antiarrhythmic use were also compared 1 year before to 2 years after AF ablation. There were fewer total (0.7±1.3 versus 0.3±0.7; P<0.001), cardiovascular (0.7±1.2 versus 0.2±0.6; P<0.001), and AF (0.6±1.1 versus 0.1±0.3; P<0.001) hospitalizations and emergency department visits (0.8±2.1 versus 0.4±0.9; P<0.001) per patient-year for the 2 years following AF ablation compared with 1 year before. Average length of stay per patient-year (1.4±7.9 versus 3.6±5.3 days; P<0.0001), the percentage of patients on antiarrhythmic therapy (21.2% versus 58.5%; P<0.0001), and those undergoing electrical cardioversions (16.1% versus 28.1%; P<0.0001) were lower 2 years following AF ablation versus 1 year before. Conclusions We noted a decrease in total, cardiovascular, and AF hospitalizations and health care resource use during the 2-year period after index AF ablation, compared with the 1 year before. AF ablation may portend a decline in patient morbidity and health care costs.

Ventricular conduction abnormality in patients with mild to moderate cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: In mild-to-moderate cardiomyopathy, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is indicated in patients with high burden of right ventricular pacing but not in those with intrinsic ventricular conduction abnormalities. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that CRT positively impacts outcomes of patients with intrinsic ventricular conduction delay and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 36%-50%. METHODS: Of 18 003 patients with LVEF ≤ 50%, 5966 (33%) patients had mild-to-moderate cardiomyopathy, of whom 1741 (29%) have a QRS duration ≥120 ms. Patients were followed to the endpoints of death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization. Outcomes were compared between patients with narrow versus wide QRS. RESULTS: Of the 1741 patients with mild-to-moderate cardiomyopathy and wide QRS duration, only 68 (4%) were implanted with a CRT device. Over a median follow-up of 3.35 years, 849 (51%) died and 1004 (58%) had a HF hospitalization. The adjusted risk of death (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.11, p = 0.046) and of death or HF hospitalization (HR = 1.10, p = 0.037) were significantly higher in patients with wide versus narrow QRS duration. In patients with wide QRS complex, CRT was associated with reduction in the adjusted risk of death (HR = 0.47, p = 0.020) and of death or HF hospitalization (HR = 0.58, p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with mild-to-moderate cardiomyopathy and wide QRS duration are rarely implanted with CRT devices and have worse outcomes compared to those with narrow QRS. Randomized trials are needed to examine if CRT has salutary effects in this population.

Quality of Life and Type of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Device in Older Heart Failure Patients.

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves quality of life (QOL) in heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction. Clinicians may have difficulty choosing between CRT with a pacemaker (CRT-P) or a defibrillator (CRT-D) for older patients. CRT-P devices are smaller, have more battery longevity, are less prone to erosions or recalls, and do not deliver shocks. These factors may impact patients' QOL, but data on such comparisons are lacking. Objectives: We examined the impact of CRT-P versus CRT-D on the QOL of older (≥75 years) HF patients who qualified for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. Settings/Subjects/Measurements: We enrolled 101 CRT recipients and assessed QOL at baseline and at six-month post-implant using the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the Minnesota living with heart failure (MLHF) questionnaires. Results: The average age of enrolled patients was 81 years, 27% were women, and 40 received a CRT-P device. After adjusting for baseline QOL score, age, sex, HF functional class, and the occurrence of adverse events, we found no significant differences in QOL outcomes between CRT-P and CRT-D recipients based on either the subscales or the composite scores for the SF-36 or MLHF questionnaires at six-months post-implantation. Conclusions: Older CRT-P and CRT-D recipients report comparable QOL scores six months after device implantation. Larger cohort studies with longer follow-up are needed to accurately assess potential QOL differences between CRT-D and CRT-P recipients to guide clinical decision making and ensure the right balance of risk versus benefit in these patients. Appropriate goals-of-care discussions are the corner stone of clinical decision making regarding defibrillator therapy. As such, even as the data stand at present, there is a need for more deliberate referral of older patients with HF to Palliative Care Specialists, or to Cardiologists trained in Palliative Care Medicine. clinicaltrials.gov listing: NCT03031847.

Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy and the Risk of Death in Primary Prevention Defibrillator Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) confers a significant mortality benefit for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), as compared to GDMT prevalent at the time of landmark primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) trials. The impact of modern era GDMT on survival in this population is unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the impact of number of GDMT medications prescribed for HFrEF on all-cause mortality in recipients of primary prevention ICD. METHODS: A cohort of 4,972 recipients with primary prevention ICD (n = 3,210) or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) (n = 1,762) was studied. The association of number of GDMT medications prescribed at the time of device implantation and all-cause mortality at 2 years post implantation was examined. RESULTS: In our primary prevention cohort, 5%, 20%, 52%, and 23% of patients were prescribed 0, 1, 2, or 3-4 GDMT medications, respectively. After risk adjustment for age, sex, ejection fraction, body mass index, the Elixhauser comorbidity score, the type of cardiomyopathy, and the year of device implantation, each additional GDMT conferred a reduction in the risk of death of 36% in recipients of ICD (HR: 0.64; P < 0.001) and 30% in recipients of CRT-D (HR: 0.70; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A higher number of prescribed GDMT medications is associated with an incremental 1-year survival in recipients of primary prevention ICD with or without CRT. Initiation of maximum number of tolerated GDMT medications should therefore be the goal for all patients with HFrEF. In the setting of robust GDMT, the risk versus benefit of a primary prevention ICD warrants re-examination in future studies.