Search

AimsNo prior study has been adequately powered to evaluate real-world safety outcomes in those receiving adjunctive ablation lesions beyond pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). We sought to evaluate characteristics and in-hospital complications among patients undergoing PVI with and without adjunctive lesions.Methods and resultsPatients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry AFib Ablation Registry undergoing first-time atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation between 2016 and 2020 were identified and stratified into paroxysmal (PAF) and persistent AF, and separated into PVI only, PVI + cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation, and PVI + adjunctive (superior vena cava isolation, coronary sinus, vein of Marshall, atypical atrial flutter lines, other). Adjusted odds of adverse events were calculated using multivariable logistic regression. A total of 50 937 patients [PAF: 30 551 (60%), persistent AF: 20 386 (40%)] were included. Among those with PAF, there were no differences in the adjusted odds of complications between PVI + CTI or PVI + adjunctive when compared with PVI only. Among persistent AF, PVI + adjunctive was associated with a higher risk of any complication [3.0 vs. 4.5%, odds ratio (OR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.58] and major complication (0.8 vs. 1.4%, OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.10-2.21), while no differences were observed in PVI + CTI compared with PVI only. Overall, there was high heterogeneity in adjunctive lesion type, and those receiving adjunctive lesions had a higher comorbidity burden.ConclusionAdditional CTI ablation was common without an increased risk of complications. Adjunctive lesions other than CTI are commonly performed in those with more comorbidities and were associated with an increased risk of complications in persistent AF, although the current analysis is limited by high heterogeneity in adjunctive lesion set type.

BackgroundContemporary data on national trends and outcomes in cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) recipients following the 2012 updated guidelines has not been studied.ObjectivesThis study assessed the trends in long-term outcomes among CRT-D Medicare-aged recipients implanted in 2011-2015.MethodsPatients aged ≥65 years undergoing de novo CRT-D implantation in the National Cardiovascular Data Implantable Cardiac Defibrillator Registry from 2011-2015 with follow-up through 2017 using Medicare data were included and stratified by year of implant. Patient characteristics, in-hospital outcomes, and outcomes up to 2 years following implant were evaluated.ResultsAmong 53,174 patients (aged 75.6-6.4 years, 29.7% women) implanted with CRT-D from 2011 to 2015, there was an increase in implantations based on guideline-concordant recommendations (81.0% to 84.7%, P < .001). Compared to 2011, in-hospital procedural complications decreased in 2015 (3.9% vs 2.9%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.76, 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.88, P < .001), driven in part by decreased lead dislodgement (1.4% vs 1.0%). After multivariable adjustment, there was a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization, cardiovascular hospitalization, and mortality at 2-year follow-up in 2015 as compared to 2011, while there were no differences in heart failure hospitalizations at follow-up.ConclusionAmong Medicare beneficiaries receiving CRT-D from 2011 to 2015, there was an increase in implantations based on guideline-concordant recommendations. Furthermore, there has been a reduction in in-hospital complications and long-term outcomes, including cardiovascular hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, and mortality; however, there has been no difference in the risk of heart failure hospitalization after adjustment.

[Figure: see text].

BackgroundPublicly reported hospital risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are calculated for Medicare beneficiaries. Outcomes for older patients with AMI may not reflect general outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine the relationship between hospital 30-day RSMRs for older patients (aged ≥65 years) and those for younger patients (aged 18 to 64 years) and all patients (aged ≥18 years) with AMI.DesignRetrospective cohort study.Setting986 hospitals in the ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) Registry-Get With the Guidelines.ParticipantsAdults hospitalized for AMI from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2014.MeasurementsHospital 30-day RSMRs were calculated for older, younger, and all patients using an electronic health record measure of AMI mortality endorsed by the National Quality Forum. Hospitals were ranked by their 30-day RSMRs for these 3 age groups, and agreement in rankings was plotted. The correlation in hospital AMI achievement scores for each age group was also calculated using the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) Program method computed with the electronic health record measure.Results267 763 and 276 031 AMI hospitalizations among older and younger patients, respectively, were identified. Median hospital 30-day RSMRs were 9.4%, 3.0%, and 6.2% for older, younger, and all patients, respectively. Most top- and bottom-performing hospitals for older patients were neither top nor bottom performers for younger patients. In contrast, most top and bottom performers for older patients were also top and bottom performers for all patients. Similarly, HVBP achievement scores for older patients correlated weakly with those for younger patients (R = 0.30) and strongly with those for all patients (R = 0.92).LimitationMinority of U.S. hospitals.ConclusionHospital mortality rankings for older patients with AMI inconsistently reflect rankings for younger patients. Incorporation of younger patients into assessment of hospital outcomes would permit further examination of the presence and effect of age-related quality differences.Primary funding sourceAmerican College of Cardiology.

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess the benefit of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in women.BackgroundClinical trials of primary prevention ICDs enrolled a limited number of women.MethodsUsing a propensity score method, we matched 490 women ≥65 years of age who received an ICD during a hospitalization for heart failure in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2007, to 490 ICD-eligible women without an ICD hospitalized for heart failure in the Get With The Guidelines for Heart Failure database from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2009. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality obtained from the Medicare Claims Database. An identical analysis was conducted in men.ResultsMedian follow-up for patients with an ICD was 4.6 years versus 3.2 years for patients with no ICD. Compared with women with no ICD, those with an ICD were younger and less frequently white. In the matched cohorts, the survival of women with an ICD was significantly longer than that of women without an ICD (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 0.95; p = 0.013). Similarly, men with an ICD had longer survival than men without an ICD (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.73, 95% confidence interval: 0.65 to 0.83; p < 0.0001). There was no interaction between sex and the presence of an ICD with respect to survival (p = 0.44).ConclusionsAmong older women with left ventricular dysfunction, a primary prevention ICD was associated with a significant survival benefit that was nearly identical to that seen in men. These findings support the use of primary prevention ICDs in eligible patients regardless of sex.

BackgroundCardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) reduces morbidity and mortality among selected patients with heart failure in clinical trials. The effectiveness of this therapy in clinical practice has not been well studied.Methods and resultsWe compared a cohort of 4471 patients from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) Registry hospitalized primarily for heart failure and who received CRT-D between April 1, 2006, and December 31, 2009, to a historical control cohort of 4888 patients with heart failure without CRT-D from the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE) hospitalized between January 1, 2002, and March 31, 2006. Both registries were linked with Medicare claims to evaluate longitudinal outcomes. We included patients from the ICD Registry with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and QRS duration ≥120 ms who were admitted for heart failure. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare outcomes with and without CRT-D after adjustment for important covariates. After multivariable adjustment, CRT-D was associated with lower 3-year risks of death (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.56; P

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces morbidity and mortality among selected patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and severe heart failure symptoms despite guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). Contemporaneous guidelines provided clear recommendations regarding selection of patients for CRT, including that all patients should first receive GDMT with β blockers and renin-angiotensin axis antagonists. Prevalence of GDMT among real-world patients receiving CRT defibrillators (CRT-D) has not been well studied. We identified 45,392 patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Registry who underwent first CRT-D implantation for primary prevention of sudden death from January 2006 to June 2008. We calculated the proportion of patients with contemporaneous class I guideline indications for CRT-D, the proportion receiving GDMT for heart failure, and the proportion receiving GDMT who had class I guideline indications for CRT-D. Among patients without contraindications, 87% were prescribed β blockers, 78% an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor inhibitor, and 70% both a β blocker and an angiotensin-converting enzyme or angiotensin II receptor inhibitor at discharge. Finally, 50% of patients met class I guideline indications and were prescribed GDMT at discharge; 9% neither met class I indications nor were prescribed GDMT at discharge. The major limitation of this study is the lack of dosage information in the Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Registry and lack of prescribing information at times other than discharge. In conclusion, many patients receiving CRT-D are not receiving GDMT at discharge. Ensuring that all patients receiving CRT-D are also receiving GDMT appears to be a quality improvement target.