Evaluation of cardiovascular implantable electronic device leads post implant: ElectroPhysiology Predictable And SuStainable Implementation Of National Registries (EP PASSION)

Predictors of Shock-Reduction Programming and Its Impact on Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapies and Mortality: The CERTITUDE Registry

BACKGROUND

Shock-reduction implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming (SRP) was associated with fewer therapies and improved survival in randomized controlled trials, but real-world studies investigating SRP and associated outcomes are limited.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The BIOTRONIK CERTITUDE registry was linked with the Medicare database. We included all patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implanted between August 22, 2012 and September 30, 2021 in the United States. SRP was defined as programming to either a therapy rate cutoff ≥188 beats per minute or number of intervals to detection ≥30/40 for treatment. Among 6781 patients (mean 74±9 years; 27% women), 3393 (50%) had SRP. Older age, secondary prevention indication, and device implantation in the southern or western United States were associated with lower use of SRP. The cumulative incidence rate of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks was lower in the SRP group (5.1% shocks/patient year) compared with the non-SRP group (7.2% shocks/patient year) (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73-0.96]; P=0.005). Over a median follow-up of 2.9 years, 739 deaths occurred in the SRP group and 822 deaths occurred in the non-SRP group (adjusted HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.88-1.07]; P=0.569). SRP was associated with a lower all-cause mortality among patients without ischemic heart disease compared with patients with ischemic heart disease (adjusted HR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.48-0.87] versus adjusted HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.92-1.14]; Pinteraction=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption of SRP is low in real-world clinical practice. Age, clinical variables, and geographic factors are associated with use of SRP. In this study, SRP-associated decrease in mortality was limited to patients without ischemic heart disease.

Evaluating cardiac lead safety using observational, real-world data: EP PASSION proof-of-concept study

BACKGROUND

Traditional post-approval study (PAS) designs have been accepted by regulatory authorities to fulfill postmarketing requirements for cardiac leads, but they have several limitations.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a proof-of-concept study of alternative methods that use real-world data (RWD) to evaluate lead safety in large populations of patients.

METHODS

Abbott patient device databases were linked with Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) claims to identify lead complications in patients implanted with Abbott Optisure lead. A 1:1 comparison between the PAS method and RWD method of detecting mechanical lead-related complication events was conducted in 444 PAS participants who were enrolled in Medicare FFS. Agreement between methods was evaluated by McNemar test and Cohen κ. Survival free from complications at 3 years was compared between the PAS and RWD cohorts with an equivalence acceptance criterion of ±2.5%.

RESULTS

There were 1171 PAS patients and 5804 Medicare FFS patients who received an Optisure lead between August 27, 2014, and June 14, 2016. Patients were observed through December 31, 2018. Complete agreement was found between PAS-reported and claims-detected complications (McNemar P value = 1; Cohen κ = 1). Survival free from complications at 3 years by the RWD method was 98.4% (95% confidence limit, 98.0%-98.7%), which was within the acceptable range of the PAS 98.4% (95% confidence limit, 97.6%-99.0%).

CONCLUSION

These results show a close agreement between RWD-detected and PAS-reported lead complication rates, which highlights the potential benefits of RWD-based methods to enhance the generation of clinical evidence for lead safety.

Using real-world data from health systems to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a catheter to treat ischemic ventricular tachycardia

BACKGROUND

The ThermoCool STSF catheter is used for ablation of ischemic ventricular tachycardia (VT) in routine clinical practice, although outcomes have not been studied and the catheter does not have Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for this indication. We used real-world health system data to evaluate its safety and effectiveness for this indication.

METHODS

Among patients undergoing ischemic VT ablation with the ThermoCool STSF catheter pooled across two health systems (Mercy Health and Mayo Clinic), the primary safety composite outcome of death, thromboembolic events, and procedural complications within 7 days was compared to a performance goal of 15%, which is twice the expected proportion of the primary composite safety outcome based on prior studies. The exploratory effectiveness outcome of rehospitalization for VT or heart failure or repeat VT ablation at up to 1 year was averaged across health systems among patients treated with the ThermoCool STSF vs. ST catheters.

RESULTS

Seventy total patients received ablation for ischemic VT using the ThermoCool STSF catheter. The primary safety composite outcome occurred in 3/70 (4.3%; 90% CI, 1.2-10.7%) patients, meeting the pre-specified performance goal, p = 0.0045. At 1 year, the effectiveness outcome risk difference (STSF-ST) at Mercy was - 0.4% (90% CI: - 25.2%, 24.3%) and at Mayo Clinic was 12.6% (90% CI: - 13.0%, 38.4%); the average risk difference across both institutions was 5.8% (90% CI: - 12.0, 23.7).

CONCLUSIONS

The ThermoCool STSF catheter was safe and appeared effective for ischemic VT ablation, supporting continued use of the catheter and informing possible FDA label expansion. Health system data hold promise for real-world safety and effectiveness evaluation of cardiovascular devices.

Cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead safety: Harnessing real-world remote monitoring data for medical device evaluation

BACKGROUND

Current methods to identify cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead failure include postapproval studies, which may be limited in scope, participant numbers, and attrition; studies relying on administrative codes, which lack specificity; and voluntary adverse event reporting, which cannot determine incidence or attribution to the lead.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether adjudicated remote monitoring (RM) data can address these limitations and augment lead safety evaluation.

METHODS

Among 48,191 actively monitored patients with a cardiovascular implantable electronic device, we identified RM transmissions signifying incident lead abnormalities and, separately, identified all leads abandoned or extracted between April 1, 2019, and April 1, 2021. We queried electronic health record and Medicare fee-for-service claims data to determine whether patients had administrative codes for lead failure. We verified lead failure through manual electronic health record review.

RESULTS

Of the 48,191 patients, 1170 (2.4%) had incident lead abnormalities detected by RM. Of these, 409 patients had administrative codes for lead failure, and 233 of these 409 patients (57.0%) had structural lead failure verified through chart review. Of the 761 patients without administrative codes, 167 (21.9%) had structural lead failure verified through chart review. Thus, 400 patients with RM transmissions suggestive of lead abnormalities (34.2%) had structural lead failure. In addition, 200 patients without preceding abnormal RM transmissions had leads abandoned or extracted for structural failure, making the total lead failure cohort 600 patients (66.7% with RM abnormalities, 33.3% without). Patients with isolated right atrial or left ventricular lead failure were less likely to have lead replacement and administrative codes reflective of lead failure.

CONCLUSION

RM may strengthen real-world assessment of lead failure, particularly for leads where patients do not undergo replacement.

Exploring unique device identifier implementation and use for real-world evidence: a mixed-methods study with NESTcc health system network collaborators

Objectives

To examine the current state of unique device identifier (UDI) implementation, including barriers and facilitators, among eight health systems participating in a research network committed to real-world evidence (RWE) generation for medical devices.

Design

Mixed methods, including a structured survey and semistructured interviews.

Setting

Eight health systems participating in the National Evaluation System for health Technology research network within the USA.

Participants

Individuals identified as being involved in or knowledgeable about UDI implementation or medical device identification from supply chain, information technology and high-volume procedural area(s) in their health system.

Main outcomes measures

Interview topics were related to UDI implementation, including barriers and facilitators; UDI use; benefits of UDI adoption; and vision for UDI implementation. Data were analysed using directed content analysis, drawing on prior conceptual models of UDI implementation and the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment framework. A brief survey of health system characteristics and scope of UDI implementation was also conducted.

Results

Thirty-five individuals completed interviews. Three of eight health systems reported having implemented UDI. Themes identified about barriers and facilitators to UDI implementation included knowledge of the UDI and its benefits among decision-makers; organisational systems, culture and networks that support technology and workflow changes; and external factors such as policy mandates and technology. A final theme focused on the availability of UDIs for RWE; lack of availability significantly hindered RWE studies on medical devices.

Conclusions

UDI adoption within health systems requires knowledge of and impetus to achieve operational and clinical benefits. These are necessary to support UDI availability for medical device safety and effectiveness studies and RWE generation.