Need and evolution of need for device therapy in a community heart failure population

Review of eligibility for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is underused. Recent guidelines have expanded indications for CRT to include less severe symptoms but now favor left bundle branch block morphology in patients with moderate QRS prolongation. The prevalence of CRT eligibility according to historical and current guidelines is uncertain. The aim of this review was to identify and synthesize all existing published research reporting the prevalence of CRT eligibility. A systematic review of electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients eligible for CRT according to historical and current criteria. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of eligibility (the ejection fraction, symptoms, and QRS duration and morphology). Eligibility estimates were pooled using random-effects models because of marked heterogeneity in between-study variance. Thirty studies were identified. No study used current guideline criteria. On the basis of historical criteria, 11 ± 3% of ambulatory and 9 ± 3% of hospitalized patients are eligible for CRT. However, New York Heart Association class II in current guidelines is at least as frequent as New York Heart Association III or IV. Approximately 1/3 of patients have QRS prolongation, 2/3 of whom have left bundle branch block. Only a few patients have non-left bundle branch block with QRS duration <150 ms. Medical contraindication or ineligibility was rarely assessed. In conclusion, current estimates of need are outdated. Inclusion of milder symptoms potentially doubles the eligible population. Studies in unselected cohorts are needed to accurately define the individual components of eligibility, together with the prevalence and reasons for ineligibility.

Clinical and psychological impact of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in a community heart failure population

AIMS

ICD implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction ≤ 35%) has increased since the publication of the SCD-HEFT and MADIT-II data. The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic ICD use in a community heart failure population and to assess the impact on patient's quality of life.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Seventy-one ICDs were inserted between the years 2002 and 2006. The mean follow-up from time of insertion was 24 ± 11 months. Eighteen patients (25%) had potentially life-saving therapy. Seven (10%) patients received inappropriate shocks. Complications were encountered in five patients (7%).

CONCLUSION

In a community heart failure population, prophylactic ICD implantation is associated with a high incidence of life-saving therapy, a low complication rate and a high level of tolerability. These data indicate translation of clinical trial benefits to the general heart failure population.

Implementation of device therapy (cardiac resynchronization therapy and implantable cardioverter defibrillator) for patients with heart failure in Europe: changes from 2004 to 2008

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) patients increasingly receive device therapy, either an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or a biventricular pacemaker, also called cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), or a CRT device with an ICD (CRT-D). However, epidemiological data on the use of device therapy in Europe are limited.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data on implantation rates for conventional pacemakers, ICD, CRT, and CRT-D in 15 Western European countries were obtained from the Eucomed Registry for the 5-year period 2004-2008. Implantation of conventional pacemakers increased by 9% in Europe over the 5 years (reaching 907/million in 2008) and there were significant differences between countries. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantations increased by 75% from 80/million in 2004 to 140/million in 2008, and differences between countries were larger than those for conventional pacemakers. Implantation rates for CRT-P alone increased slightly from 2004 to 2006, but remained at 25/million thereafter in Europe overall. The total number of CRT implants (CRT-P and -D) markedly increased from 46/million in 2004 to 99/million in 2008 (115%), but this was mainly due to more CRT-D implants, i.e. an increase in the proportion of CRT-D (from 55% in 2004 to 75% in 2008). Implantation rates for ICD, CRT, and CRT-D remained markedly different throughout the study period between countries.

CONCLUSION

Implantation rates of devices for HF, in particular ICD and CRT-D, have increased significantly between 2004 and 2008 in Europe, but there remain major differences between countries.