Search

Background: The benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with non-left bundle branch block (LBBB) conduction abnormality have not been fully explored., Objectives: This study sought to evaluate clinical outcomes among Medicare-aged patients with nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay (NICD) versus right bundle branch block (RBBB) in patients eligible for implantation with a CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D)., Methods: Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) registry data between 2010 and 2013, the authors compared outcomes in CRT-eligible patients implanted with CRT-D versus ICD-only therapy among patients with NICD and RBBB. Also, among all CRT-D-implanted patients, the authors compared outcomes in those with NICD versus RBBB. Survival curves and multivariable adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were used to assess outcomes including hospitalization and death., Results: In 11,505 non-LBBB CRT-eligible patients, after multivariable adjustment, among patients with RBBB, CRT-D was not associated with better outcomes, compared with ICD alone, regardless of QRS duration. Among patients with NICD and a QRS ≥150 ms, CRT-D was associated with decreased mortality at 3 years compared with ICD alone (HR: 0.602; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.416 to 0.871; p = 0.0071). Among 5,954 CRT-D-implanted patients, after multivariable adjustment NICD compared with RBBB was associated with lower mortality at 3 years in those with a QRS duration of ≥150 ms (HR: 0.757; 95% CI: 0.625 to 0.917; p = 0.0044)., Conclusions: Among non-LBBB CRT-D-eligible patients, CRT-D implantation was associated with better outcomes compared with ICD alone specifically in NICD patients with a QRS duration of ≥150 ms. Careful patient selection should be considered for CRT-D implantation in patients with non-LBBB conduction., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) are poorly represented in clinical trials of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)., Objectives: This study sought to assess the real-world comparative effectiveness of CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) versus implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) alone in CRT-eligible patients with moderate-to-severe CKD., Methods: We conducted an inverse probability-weighted analysis of 10,946 CRT-eligible patients (ejection fraction <35%, QRS >120 ms, New York Heart Association functional class III/IV) with stage 3 to 5 CKD in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) ICD Registry, comparing outcomes between patients who received CRT-D (n = 9,525) versus ICD only (n = 1,421). Outcomes were obtained via Medicare claims and censored at 3 years. The primary endpoint of heart failure (HF) hospitalization or death and the secondary endpoint of death were assessed with Cox proportional hazards models. HF hospitalization, device explant, and progression to end-stage renal disease were assessed using Fine-Gray models., Results: After risk adjustment, CRT-D use was associated with a reduction in HF hospitalization or death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78 to 0.91; p < 0.0001), death (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.93; p < 0.0004), and HF hospitalization alone (subdistribution HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.93; p < 0.009). Subgroup analyses suggested that CRT was associated with a reduced risk of HF hospitalization and death across CKD classes. The incidence of in-hospital, short-term, and mid-term device-related complications did not vary across CKD stages., Conclusions: In a nationally representative population of HF and CRT-eligible patients, use of CRT-D was associated with a significantly lower risk of the composite endpoint of HF hospitalization or death among patients with moderate-to-severe CKD in the setting of acceptable complication rates., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prior studies have suggested that women have better outcomes than men after cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare mortality after CRT-D implantation by sex, QRS morphology, and duration., Methods: Survival curves and covariate adjusted hazard ratios (HR) were used to assess mortality by sex in 31,892 CRT-D patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR), implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) registry between 2006 and 2009, with up to 5 years' follow-up (median 2.9 years, interquartile range: 2.0 to 3.9 years). Patients were grouped by QRS morphology and 10-ms increments in QRS duration., Results: Among patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB), women had a 21% lower mortality risk than men (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.84; p < 0.001); however, there was no sex difference in non-LBBB (HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.06; p = 0.37). Longer QRS duration was associated with better survival in both sexes with LBBB, but not in patients without LBBB. Compared with women with LBBB and QRS of 120 to 129 ms, women with LBBB and QRS of 140 to 149 ms had a 27% lower mortality (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.88; p = 0.001); this difference was 18% in men (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.93; p = 0.003). Mortality in LBBB and QRS of 150 ms or longer compared with those with LBBB and QRS of 120 to 129 ms was similar between sexes (HR: 0.61 to 0.68; p < 0.001 for women and HR: 0.58 to 0.66; p < 0.001 for men). Sex interactions within 10-ms groups were not significant., Conclusions: Among patients with LBBB who received CRT-D, mortality is lower in women than men. Additionally, longer QRS duration in LBBB is associated with better survival in both sexes. In contrast, there is no sex difference in patients without LBBB, regardless of QRS duration. Further studies should include a non-CRT comparator group to confirm these findings., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To better inform patients and physicians of the expected risk of adverse events and to assist hospitals' efforts to improve the outcomes of patients undergoing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation, we developed and validated a risk model using data from the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) ICD Registry., Background: ICD prolong life in selected patients, but ICD implantation carries the risk of periprocedural complications., Methods: We analyzed data from 240,632 ICD implantation procedures between April 1, 2010, and December 31, 2011 in the registry. The study group was divided into a derivation (70%) and a validation (30%) cohort. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with in-hospital adverse events (complications or mortality). A parsimonious risk score was developed on the basis of beta estimates derived from the logistic model. Hierarchical models were then used to calculate risk-standardized complication rates to account for differences in case mix and procedural volume., Results: Overall, 4,388 patients (1.8%) experienced at least 1 in-hospital complication or death. Thirteen factors were independently associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes. Model performance was similar in the derivation and validation cohorts (C-statistics = 0.724 and 0.719, respectively). The risk score characterized patients into low- and-high risk subgroups for adverse events (≤10 points, 0.3%; ≥30 points, 4.2%). The risk-standardized complication rates varied significantly across hospitals (median: 1.77, interquartile range 1.54, 2.14, 5th/95th percentiles: 1.16/3.15)., Conclusions: We developed a simple model that predicts risk for in-hospital adverse events among patients undergoing ICD placement. This can be used for shared decision making and to benchmark hospital performance., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)