A Population-Based Study of Device Eligibility, Use, and Reasons for Nonimplantation in Patients at Heart Function Clinics

Factors Associated With Non-Uptake of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) Among Eligible Patients at a Tertiary Hospital in Kenya

Background

Efficacy of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) implantation in both primary and secondary prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD) in at-risk population is well established. ICD implantation rates remain low particularly in Africa with a paucity of data regarding factors associated with non-uptake.

Objectives

The primary study objective was to determine the factors associated with non-uptake of ICD among heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF<35%). Reasons for ICD refusal among eligible patients were reviewed as a secondary objective.

Methods

This was a retrospective study among HF patients eligible for ICD implantation evaluated between 2018 to 2020. Comparison between ICD recipient and non-recipient categories was made to establish determinants of non-uptake.

Results

Of 206 eligible patients, only 69 (33.5%) had an ICD. Factors independently associated with non-uptake were lack of private insurance (42.3% vs 63.8%; p = 0.005), non-cardiology physician (16.1% vs 5.8%; p = 0.045) and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (54.7% vs 36.4% p = 0.014). The most common (75%) reason for ICD refusal was inability to pay for the device.

Conclusion

ICDs are underutilized among eligible HF with reduced EF patients in Kenya. The majority of patients without ICD had no private insurance, had non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and non-cardiology primary physician. Early referral of HF with reduced EF patients to HF specialists to optimize guideline-directed medical therapy and make ICD recommendation is needed.

Patients' knowledge and concerns about using the implantable cardioverter defibrillator for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death and its correlates: A cross-sectional study

Background and Aims

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is one of the most common causes of mortality in heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction. Patients have concerns about the disease and use the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) to reduce the effects of HF disease. The current study aims to evaluate the barriers and factors affecting the implantation of the ICD for primary prevention.

Methods

One hundred-forty-seven patients with HF were studied in public hospitals in southern Iran by using a cross-sectional design from April 2018 to June 2019. Demographic, researcher-made questionnaire, World Health Organization Quality of life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF), general self-efficacy questionnaires, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were measured for investigating the barriers and impact factors in patent HF.

Results

Most participants were male (56.5%), married (88.4%), illiterate (54.1%), and unemployed (72.6%). 62.6% (n = 92) of the participants did not know about HF and ICD. The total score of patients' concerns about using ICD was 47.11 ± 11.26, which showed a moderate level. The scores of knowledge about HF and ICD had a significant positive poor correlation with self-efficacy, perceived social support and QoL. Also, the score of concerns about the ICD had a significant negative poor correlation with perceived social support.

Conclusion

Understanding HF patients' issues and obstacles can help us prevent sudden death. Doctors' advice has a significant impact on patients' acceptance. Poor knowledge is the most important reason for nonparticipation. Intervention is necessary to inform patients to understand the advantages and disadvantages.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement among patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35 % at least 40 days after acute myocardial infarction

Background

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death among patients with persistently reduced (≤35 %) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at least 40 days following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Few prior studies have used LVEF measured after the 40-day waiting period to examine primary prevention ICD placement.

Methods

We sought to determine factors associated with ICD placement among patients who met LVEF criteria post-MI within a large integrated health care system in the U.S by conducting a retrospective cohort study of Veteran patients hospitalized for AMI from 2004 to 2017 who had documented LVEF ≤35 % from echocardiograms performed between 40 and 455 (90 days +1 year) days post-MI. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine factors associated with ICD placement.

Results

Of 12,893 patients with LVEF ≤35 % at least 40 days post-MI, 2176 (16.9 %) received an ICD between 91- and 455-days post-MI. Younger age, fewer comorbidities, revascularization with PCI, and greater use of GDMT were associated with increased odds of receiving an ICD. However, half of patients treated with a beta-blocker, ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist prior to LVEF assessment did not receive an ICD. Eligible Black patients were less likely (odds ratio 0.80, 95 % confidence interval 0.69-0.92) to receive an ICD than White patients.

Conclusion

Many factors affect ICD placement among Veteran patients with a confirmed LVEF ≤35 % at least 40 days post-MI. Greater understanding of factors influencing ICD placement would help clinicians ensure guideline-concordant care.