The impact of implantable cardiac defibrillators for primary prophylaxis in the community: baseline risk and clinically meaningful benefits

Mid-term feasibility and safety of downgrade procedure from defibrillator to pacemaker with cardiac resynchronization therapy

Backgrounds

Some patients who undergo implantation of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) survive long enough, thus requiring CRT-D battery replacement. Defibrillator therapy might become unnecessary in patients who have had significant clinical improvement and recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after CRT-D implantation.

Methods

Forty-nine patients who needed replacement of a CRT-D battery were considered for exchange of CRT-D for cardiac resynchronization therapy with pacemaker (CRT-P) if they met the following criteria: LVEF >45%; the indication for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator was primary prevention at initial implantation and no appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy was documented after initial implantation of the CRT-D.

Results

Seven patients (14.2%) were undergone a downgrade from CRT-D to CRT-P without any complications. No ventricular tachyarrhythmic events were observed during a mean follow-up of 39.7 ± 21.1 months and there was no significant change in LVEF between before and 1 year after device replacement (53.5% ± 6.2% vs. 56.4% ± 7.3%, P = 0.197).

Conclusions

This study confirmed mid-term feasibility and safety of downgrade from CRT-D to CRT-P alternative to conventional replacement with CRT-D.

•

Downgrade from CRT-D to CRT-P is feasible for patients with improved LVEF of >45%.

•

Patients without VT/VF after initial CRT-D implantation are suitable for downgrade.

•

Patients had no ventricular arrhythmias or HF hospitalization after the downgrade.

Reduced appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy after cardiac resynchronization therapy-induced left ventricular function recovery: a meta-analysis and systematic review

AIMS

For patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD; CRT-D), the effect of an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on appropriate ICD therapy may have significant implications regarding management at the time of ICD generator replacement.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the effect of LVEF recovery following CRT on the incidence of appropriate ICD therapy. A search of multiple electronic databases identified 709 reports, of which 6 retrospective cohort studies were included (n = 1740). In patients with post-CRT LVEF ≥35% (study n = 4), the pooled estimated rate of ICD therapy (5.5/100 person-years) was significantly lower than patients with post-CRT LVEF <35% [incidence rate difference (IRD): -6.5/100 person-years, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): -8.8 to -4.2, P < 0.001]. Similarly, patients with post-CRT LVEF ≥45% (study n = 4) demonstrated lower estimated rates of ICD therapy (2.3/100 person-years) compared with patients without such recovery (IRD: -5.8/100 person-years, 95% CI: -7.6 to -4.0, P < 0.001). Restricting analysis to studies discounting ICD therapies during LVEF recovery (study n = 3), patients with LVEF recovery (≥35 or ≥45%) had significantly lower rates of ICD therapy compared with patients without such recovery (P for both <0.001). Patients with primary prevention indication for ICD, regardless of LVEF recovery definition, had very low rates of ICD therapy (0.4 to 0.8/100-person years).

CONCLUSION

Recovery of LVEF post-CRT is associated with significantly reduced appropriate ICD therapy. Patients with improvement of LVEF ≥45% and those with primary prevention indication for ICD appear to be at lowest risk.

Predictors of Sudden Cardiac Death and Appropriate Shock in the Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) Trial

Background— The factors that determine the risk for sudden death or implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) therapies are largely unknown.

Methods and Results— We hypothesized that clinical measures of heart failure severity and the presence of comorbid conditions would predict the risk of malignant arrhythmias in the 1520 patients enrolled in the Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) Trial. Outcomes in the CRT group after implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy were also evaluated. The CRT-defibrillator device reduced the risk of sudden death by 56% compared with drug therapy (17 of 595 [2.9%] versus 18 of 308 [5.8%], P <0.02). CRT therapy was not associated with sudden death risk reduction (48 of 617 [7.8%]). Other factors associated with reduced sudden death risk were left ventricular ejection fraction >20% (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.87]; P =0.01), QRS duration >160 ms (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.40 to 0.997]; P =0.05), and female gender (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.94]; P =0.003). The risk for sudden death was increased by advanced New York Heart Association class IV heart failure (HR, 2.62 [95% CI, 1.61 to 4.26]; P <0.011) and renal dysfunction (HR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.06 to 2.69]; P =0.03). An appropriate shock was experienced in 88 (15%) of the 595 CTR-D patients. In the CRT-defibrillator patients, female gender (HR, 0.54 [95 % CI, 0.31 to 0.94]; P =0.03) and use of neurohormonal antagonists were associated with reduced risk. Class IV heart failure status increased risk. Appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy was positively associated with risk of death or all-cause hospitalization (HR, 1.57; P <0.002), pump failure death or hospitalization (HR, 2.35; P <0.001), and sudden death (HR, 2.99; P =0.03), but not total mortality (HR, 1.3; P =0.28).

Conclusions— In CRT candidates, sudden cardiac death risk is associated with higher New York Heart Association class and renal dysfunction. In CRT-defibrillator recipients, reduction in the risk of an appropriate shock is associated with medical therapy with neurohormonal antagonists, female gender, and New York Heart Association functional class III versus IV clinical status. Shock therapy was associated with worse outcome.

ICD-10 coding algorithms for defining comorbidities of acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

With the introduction of ICD-10 throughout Canada, it is important to ensure that Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) comorbidities employed in risk adjustment methods remain valid and robust. Therefore, we developed ICD-10 coding algorithms for nine AMI comorbidities, examined the validity of the ICD-10 and ICD-9 coding algorithms in detection of these comorbidities, and assessed their performance in predicting mortality. The nine comorbidities that we examined were shock, diabetes with complications, congestive heart failure, cancer, cerebrovascular disease, pulmonary edema, acute renal failure, chronic renal failure, and cardiac dysrhythmias.

METHODS

Coders generated a comprehensive list of ICD-10 codes corresponding to each AMI comorbidity. Physicians independently reviewed and determined the clinical relevance of each item on the list. To ensure that the newly developed ICD-10 coding algorithms were valid in recording comorbidities, medical charts were reviewed. After assessing ICD-10 algorithms' validity, both ICD-10 and ICD-9 algorithms were applied to a Canadian provincial hospital discharge database to predict in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality.

RESULTS

Compared to chart review data as a 'criterion standard', ICD-9 and ICD-10 data had similar sensitivities (ranging from 7.1-100%), and specificities (above 93.6%) for each of the nine AMI comorbidities studied. The frequencies for the comorbidities were similar between ICD-9 and ICD-10 coding algorithms for 49,861 AMI patients in a Canadian province during 1994-2004. The C-statistics for predicting 30-day and 1 year mortality were the same for ICD-9 (0.82) and for ICD-10 data (0.81).

CONCLUSION

The ICD-10 coding algorithms developed in this study to define AMI comorbidities performed similarly as past ICD-9 coding algorithms in detecting conditions and risk-adjustment in our sample. However, the ICD-10 coding algorithms should be further validated in external databases.