Search

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether burden of multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) influences the risk of receiving inappropriate vs appropriate device therapies. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Seven US healthcare delivery systems. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with left ventricular systolic dysfunction receiving an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention. MEASUREMENTS: Data on 24 comorbid conditions were captured from electronic health records and categorized into quartiles of comorbidity burden (0‐3, 4‐5, 6‐7 and 8‐16). Incidence of ICD therapies (shock and antitachycardia pacing [ATP] therapies), including appropriateness, was collected for 3 years after implantation. Outcomes included time to first ICD therapy, total ICD therapy burden, and risk of inappropriate vs appropriate ICD therapy. RESULTS: Among 2235 patients (mean age = 69 ± 11 years, 75% men), the median number of comorbidities was 6 (interquartile range = 4‐8), with 98% having at least two comorbidities. During a mean 2.2 years of follow‐up, 18.3% of patients experienced at least one appropriate therapy and 9.9% experienced at least one inappropriate therapy. Higher comorbidity burden was associated with an increased risk of first inappropriate therapy (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.94 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 1.14‐3.31] for 4‐5 comorbidities; HR = 2.25 [95% CI = 1.25‐4.05] for 6‐7 comorbidities; and HR = 2.91 [95% CI = 1.54‐5.50] for 8‐16 comorbidities). Participants with 8‐16 comorbidities had a higher total burden of ICD therapy (adjusted relative risk [RR] = 2.12 [95% CI = 1.43‐3.16]), a higher burden of inappropriate therapy (RR = 3.39 [95% CI = 1.67‐6.86]), and a higher risk of receiving inappropriate vs appropriate therapy (RR = 1.74 [95% CI = 1.07‐2.82]). Comorbidity burden was not significantly associated with receipt of appropriate ICD therapies. Patterns were similar when separately examining shock or ATP therapies. CONCLUSIONS: In primary prevention ICD recipients, MCC burden was independently associated with an increased risk of inappropriate but not appropriate device therapies. Comorbidity burden should be considered when engaging patients in shared decision making about ICD implantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To assess the clinical effectiveness of beta-blocker therapy in individuals with heart failure ( HF) and chronic lung disease and of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors ( ACE-Is) and angiotensin II receptor blockers ( ARBs) in individuals with HF and chronic kidney disease. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Community. Participants Individuals with HF with reduced ejection fraction ( HFr EF) or HF with preserved ejection fraction ( HFp EF). Methods We undertook separate new-user cohort studies to assess the effectiveness of beta-blocker therapy in treating HF and chronic lung disease and ACE-Is and ARBs in treating HF and chronic kidney disease ( CKD). Individuals with a chronic lung disease diagnosis were included in the group with HF and chronic lung disease ( International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes 490-496, 518). Individuals with an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 were included in the group with HF and CKD. The clinical outcomes of interest were death from any cause, hospitalization for HF, and hospitalization for any reason. We fitted pooled logistic marginal structural models using inverse probability weighting, stratified according to HF type. Results For individuals with HFr EF with chronic lung disease, beta-blocker therapy was protective against death (relative risk ( RR) = 0.58, 95% confidence interval ( CI) = 0.44-0.77) and hospitalization for HF ( RR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.60-1.00). For those with HFp EF, no statistically significant associations between beta-blocker therapy use and any of the outcomes were observed. We found ACE-I and ARB use to be protective against all three outcomes of interest in individuals with HFr EF (death from any cause: RR = 0.60, 95% 0.40-0.91; hospitalization for HF: RR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.28-0.67; hospitalization for any reason: RR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.45-0.89, respectively) and those with HFp EF (death from any cause: RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.33-0.81; hospitalization for HF: RR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.18-0.68; hospitalization for any reason: RR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.47-0.95). Conclusion Large observational studies may allow for identification of important subgroups of individuals with HF that might benefit from existing treatment approaches. Our findings may also better inform the design of more-definitive future observational studies and randomized trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]