Comparative Analysis of Procedural Outcomes and Complications Between De Novo and Upgraded Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared rates of procedural success and complications between de novo cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation versus upgrade, including characterization of technical challenges. BACKGROUND: CRT upgrade is common, but data are limited on the incidence of procedural success and complications as compared to de novo implantation. METHODS: All patients who underwent a transvenous CRT procedure at a single institution between 2013 and 2018 were reviewed for procedure outcome, 90-day complications, reasons for unsuccessful left ventricular lead delivery, and the presence of venous occlusive disease (VOD) that required a modified implantation technique. RESULTS: Among 1,496 patients, 947 (63%) underwent de novo implantation and 549 (37%) underwent device upgrade. Patients who received a device upgrade were older (70 ± 12 years vs. 68 ± 13 years; p < 0.01), with a male predominance (75% vs. 66%; p < 0.01) and greater prevalence of comorbidities. There was no difference in the rate of procedural success between de novo and upgrade CRT procedures (97% vs. 96%; p = 0.28) or 90-day complications (5.1% vs. 4.6%; p = 0.70). VOD was present in 23% of patients who received a device upgrade and was more common among patients with a dual-chamber versus a single-chamber device (26% vs. 9%; p < 0.001). Patients with and without VOD had a similar composite outcome of procedural failure or complication (8.0% vs. 7.8%; p = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of procedural success and complications were no different between de novo CRT implantations and upgrades. VOD frequently increased procedural complexity in upgrades, but alternative management strategies resulted in similar outcomes. Routine venography before CRT upgrade may aid in procedural planning and execution of these strategies.

The National Cardiovascular Data Registry Voluntary Public Reporting Program: An Interim Report From the NCDR Public Reporting Advisory Group.

Public reporting of health care data continues to proliferate as consumers and other stakeholders seek information on the quality and outcomes of care. Medicare's Hospital Compare website, the U.S. News & World Report hospital rankings, and several state-level programs are well known. Many rely heavily on administrative data as a surrogate to reflect clinical reality. Clinical data are traditionally more difficult and costly to collect, but more accurately reflect patients' clinical status, thus enhancing the validity of quality metrics. We describe the public reporting effort being launched by the American College of Cardiology and partnering professional organizations using clinical data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) programs. This hospital-level voluntary effort will initially report process of care measures from the percutaneous coronary intervention (CathPCI) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) registries of the NCDR. Over time, additional process, outcomes, and composite performance metrics will be reported.