Underutilization of β-Blockers in Patients Undergoing Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator and Cardiac Resynchronization Procedures

Defining the gap in heart failure treatment in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND

The use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is poorly described in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and/or implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs).

OBJECTIVE

To define the eligibility, uptake, dose, contraindications, and barriers to uptake of contemporary medical therapy in this population.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of consecutive adults with ICD and/or CRT attending two Canadian tertiary centre device clinics between 1 March and 31 May 2021.

RESULTS

From 1005 device clinic consultations, 227 (22.6%) patients with HFrEF and CRT and/or ICD were included. GDMT eligibility was high: beta-blockers (99.6%), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) (89.0%), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) (84.6%), and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2I) (87.7%). Contraindications were rare: beta-blockers (0.4%), MRA (11.0%), ARNI (15.4%), and SGLT2I (12.3%). Uptake of GDMT was high for beta-blockers (97.4%) but low for other medications: MRA (63.0%), ARNI (46.7%), SGLT2I (22.9%). Except for SGLT2I (84.6%) and beta-blockers (57.9%), less than one-half of patients were prescribed target-doses of MRA (10.5%), and ARNI (47.7%). Of the visits, GDMT was already optimal in 16%, electrophysiologists acted in 33% (21% prescribed, 7% ordered investigations, 5% referred to heart function services), and in the remaining visits, optimization was either deferred to another cardiologist (20%) or no plan was mentioned (25%), besides other reasons (4%).

CONCLUSION

Despite broad eligibility for GDMT in patients with HFrEF and ICD/CRT, significant gaps in prescription and titration exist. Our results highlight the need to embed quality assurance initiatives in cardiac device clinics to improve HFrEF care.

β-blocker adherence among patients with congenital long QT syndrome: a nationwide study

AIM

β-blockers are the first line of treatment in patients with congenital long QT syndrome (cLQTS) (class I or II recommendation) in order to prevent malignant arrhythmias. Hence, we examined long-term β-blocker adherence and associated risk factors among patients with cLQTS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Danish patients with cLQTS claiming a prescription for any β-blocker after their cLQTS diagnosis were identified using data from nationwide registries and specialized inherited cardiac disease clinics (1995-2017). Patients were followed for up to 5 years. Treatment breaks >60 days were assessed (i.e. proxy for reduced adherence). Multivariable Cox regression was used to identify risk factors associated with breaks of >60 days in β-blocker treatment. Overall, 500 out of 633 (79%) patients with cLQTS claimed at least one prescription for any β-blocker after cLQTS diagnosis. During follow-up, 38.4% had a treatment break. Risk factors significantly associated with treatment breaks were implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-2.53], β-blocker side effects (HR = 2.69, 95% CI: 1.75-4.13), and psychiatric disease (HR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.04-2.57). In contrast, patients presenting with ventricular tachycardia/syncope as cLQTS disease manifestation were less likely to have a treatment break compared with asymptomatic patients (HR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.33-0.92).

CONCLUSION

Reduced β-blocker adherence was common with more than a third of patients having a treatment break >60 days after cLQTS diagnosis. Patients with psychiatric disease, self-reported β-blocker side effects, and an ICD were more likely to display reduced adherence, whereas a severe cLQTS disease manifestation was associated with optimal β-blocker adherence.

Heart failure treatment in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: Opportunity for improvement

BACKGROUND

Heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is the predominant indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation. The care gap and opportunity to optimize guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to define uptake, eligibility, dose, and adherence to GDMT in patients with CRT/ICD and HFrEF.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched from 2000 to July 2021 for major randomized trials, registries, and cohort studies evaluating GDMT in this population. Thirty-eight studies focused on medical therapy in patients with CRT/ICD devices (CRT = 23, ICD = 11, and both = 4).

RESULTS

In the pivotal device trials, ACEI/ARB and beta-blocker use was high (mean 94%, range 41%-99%; and 83%, range 27%-97%, respectively), but mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists were modest (mean 45%, range 32%-61%), in keeping with guidelines of that era. Similar results were found in observational registries. CRT was associated with beta-blocker uptitration, while the effects on ACEI/ARB were less consistent. For beta blockers, 57%-68% of patients were uptitrated, increasing the mean percent of target dose achieved by 24% from baseline to follow-up. In one study, adherence increased, for ACEI/ARB from 37% to 55% and beta blockers 34% to 58%. Only 1 study assessed potential eligibility at implant for sacubitril-valsartan (72%) or ivabradine (28%), and no study examined sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Increased uptake, titration, and dose was associated with reduced mortality, hospitalization, and device therapies.

CONCLUSION

Patients with HFrEF and ICD/CRT are undertreated with respect to GDMT, and there is opportunity to optimize therapy to improve morbidity and mortality.

Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in Heart Failure with Recovered Ejection Fraction

Given recent advances in both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies for improving outcomes related to chronic systolic heart failure, heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF) is now recognized as a distinct clinical entity with increasing prevalence. In many patients who once had an indication for active implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy, questions remain regarding the usefulness of this primary prevention strategy to protect against syncope and cardiac arrest after they have achieved myocardial recovery. Early, small studies provide convincing evidence for continued guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in segments of the HFrecEF population to promote persistent left ventricular myocardial recovery. Retrospective data suggest that the risk of sudden cardiac death is lower, but still present, in HFrecEF as compared with HF with reduced ejection fraction, with reports of up to 5 appropriate ICD therapies delivered per 100 patient-years. The usefulness of continued ICD therapy is weighed against the unfavorable effects of this strategy, which include a cumulative risk of infection, inappropriate discharge, and patient-level anxiety. Historically, many surrogate measures for risk stratification have been explored, but few have demonstrated efficacy and widespread availability. We found that the available data to inform decisions surrounding the continued use of active ICD therapies in this population are incomplete, and more advanced tools such as genetic testing, evaluation of high-risk structural cardiomyopathies (such as noncompaction), and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging have emerged as vital in risk stratification. Clinicians and patients should engage in shared decision-making to evaluate the appropriateness of active ICD therapy for any given individual. In this article, we explore the definition of HFrecEF, data underlying continuation of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients who have achieved left ventricular ejection fraction recovery, the benefits and risks of active ICD therapy, and surrogate measures that may have a role in risk stratification.

Building a Heart Failure Clinic: A Practical Guide from the Heart Failure Society of America

Heart failure (HF) remains a leading cause of mortality and morbidity and a primary driver of health care resource use in the United States. As such, there continues to be much interest in the development and refinement of HF clinics that manage patients with HF in a guideline-directed, technology-enabled, and coordinated approach. Optimization of resource use and maintenance of collaboration with other providers are also important themes when considering implementation of HF clinics. Through this document, the Heart Failure Society of America aims to provide a contemporary, practical guide to creating and sustaining a HF clinic. The guide discusses (1) patient care considerations for delivering guideline-directed and patient-centered care, and (2) operational considerations including development of a HF clinic business plan, setting goals, leadership support, triggers for patient referral and patient follow-up, patient population served, optimal clinic staffing models, relationships with subspecialists, and continuous quality improvement. This document was developed to empower providers and clinicians who wish to build and sustain community-based, successful HF clinics.

Effect of Optimization of Medical Treatment on Long-Term Survival of Patients With Heart Failure After Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator and Cardiac Resynchronization Device Implantation (from the French National EGB Database)

Prognosis of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is improved by drug optimization according to guidelines; however, little is known regarding such optimization in HFrEF patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). This study aimed to describe implementation of this optimized strategy and its impact in patients implanted with an ICD/CRT. Using a 1/97th representative sample of the French national health-care insurance system claims database, a retrospective cohort study was conducted including HFrEF patients implanted with ICD or CRT between January 2009 and December 2014. HFrEF treatments were analyzed before and after ICD/CRT implantation. Heart failure (HF) hospitalization and survival were examined at 1, 3, and 5 years: 378 patients (135 CRT, 243 ICD) with a mean age of 68 ± 13 years were included. Mean follow-up was 23 months [11-42]. At baseline, 36% of patients had no or only 1 HFrEF drug among β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, whereas 26% of patients received an optimal treatment (all 3 classes). At 3 months after ICD/CRT implantation, the prescription rate of HFrEF drugs was higher than baseline but returned to preimplantation levels at the end of follow-up. HF hospitalization rate was higher in the nonoptimized patient group (28% vs 14%, p = 0.001). Optimal HFrEF treatment was associated with better survival (hazard ratio = 0.59 [0.4-0.86], p = 0.006). In conclusion, HFrEF drugs are underprescribed before and after ICD/CRT implantation despite the demonstration that HFrEF drug optimization also reduces death and HF hospitalization in this population.

Use of Guideline-Directed Medications for Heart Failure Before Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation

BACKGROUND

Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is recommended before primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement. Adherence to this recommendation and associated outcomes are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the use of GDMT (≥1 prescription filled for both a renin-angiotensin inhibitor [RAI] and a heart failure-approved beta-blocker [HFBB]) within 90 days before primary prevention ICD placement in patients with HFrEF.

METHODS

Data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry were merged with a 40% random sample of Medicare administrative data. Prescription fills for recipients of primary prevention ICD between 2007 and 2011 were examined, analyzing GDMT overall and for each U.S. hospital referral region. We identified characteristics associated with GDMT and the association with 1-year mortality.

RESULTS

Among 19,733 patients with HFrEF and primary prevention ICD, 61.1% filled any GDMT before implantation. Across hospital referral regions, GDMT was applied in 51% to 71%. The strongest predictors of any GDMT included absence of chronic renal disease or nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, low-income prescription benefits subsidy, and less recent left ventricular ejection fraction evaluation. Patients receiving GDMT versus those without had a lower 1-year mortality rate after ICD implantation (11.1% vs. 16.2%), even after adjustment for comorbidities, left ventricular ejection fraction, and functional heart failure class.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of GDMT for HFrEF before primary prevention ICD implantation were low, and failure to achieve GDMT was associated with significantly decreased 1-year survival.

Association between remote implantable cardioverter defibrillator monitoring and beta-blocker utilization: An analysis from the EFFECT study

Introduction

A substantial number of heart failure patients undergoing implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) fail to receive beta-blockers, or receive them at a suboptimal dose. Remote monitoring (RM) is becoming the standard means of following up recipients of ICDs. However, the impact of this shift toward remote ICD follow-up on the quality of drug therapy management in current clinical practice is unknown. The present analysis was aimed at investigating the impact of RM on the dose of beta-blockers achieved, and its association with clinical outcome at 12 months.

Methods

Altogether 987 consecutive patients were enrolled and followed up for at least 12 months in 25 Italian centres. RM was adopted by 499 patients.

Results

The number of patients receiving beta-blockers at any dose decreased after 12 months (from 403 (81%) to 370 (74%) for the remote arm and from 389 (80%) to 342 (70%) for the standard arm, both p < 0.02). Nonetheless, the number of patients on beta-blockers at the effective dose increased in both arms (from 60 (12%) to 82 (16%) for remote and from 63 (13%) to 98 (20%) for standard arms respectively, both p < 0.05). At multivariate analysis, RM was not associated with an effective dose of beta-blockers at the follow-up evaluation. However, the adoption of RM ( p = 0.003) and the achievement of the effective dose of beta-blockers ( p = 0.006) were independently and positively associated with an improved outcome.

Discussion

In a ‘real-world’ setting, we did not find an association between RM and the achieved dose of beta-blockers. However, we reported outcome benefits in achieving the effective dose of beta-blockers during follow-up and in adopting RM.

Evaluation of synergistic effects of resynchronization therapy and a β-blocker up-titration strategy based on a predefined patient-management program: the RESTORE study

Prior studies have suggested that a substantial number of eligible heart failure (HF) patients fail to receive β-blocker therapy, or receive it at a suboptimal dose. The aim of this study is to assess the benefit of a predefined management program designed for β-blocker up-titration, evaluating the synergistic effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and β-blockers in a HF population. The Resynchronization Therapy and β-Blocker Titration (RESTORE) study is a prospective, case-control, multicenter cohort study designed to test the hypothesis that a β-blocker up-titration strategy based on a predefined management program maximizes the beneficial effect of CRT, increasing the number of patients reaching the target dose of β-blockers and improving their clinical outcome. All study patients receive an implantable defibrillator for CRT delivery in accordance with current guidelines. Enrollments started in December 2011 and are scheduled to end in December 2014. Approximately 250 consecutive patients will be prospectively enrolled in 6 Italian centers and followed up for 24 months after implantation. The primary endpoint is to demonstrate that CRT may allow titration of β-blockers until the optimal dose, or at least to the effective dose, in patients with HF. This study might provide important information about the benefit of a predefined management program for β-blocker up-titration in patients receiving CRT. Moreover, assessment of health-care utilization and the consumption of resources will allow estimating the potential utility of remote monitoring by means of an automated telemedicine system in facilitating the titration of β-blockers in comparison with a standard in-hospital approach.

Comparing outcome of patients with coronary artery disease and dilated cardiomyopathy in ICD and CRT recipients: data from the German DEVICE-registry

AIMS

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether there are differences in use and outcome of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy with or without cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) between patients with underlying coronary artery disease (CAD) and non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM).

METHODS

A total of 2,263 consecutive patients from 44 German centers who underwent new ICD or CRT implantation between March 2007 and April 2010 were enrolled in the German DEVICE registry. Patients were followed for at least 1 year.

RESULTS

Of 1,621 patients who received an ICD, 1,202 (74.2%) had CAD and 419 (25.8%) suffered from DCM. Patients who received CRT (n = 642) had CAD in 52.2% and DCM in 47.8%. The vast majority received CRT with ICD backup (CRT-D, 95%). In both ICD and CRT groups, CAD patients were older and more often male. LV ejection fraction in ICD patients with CAD was significantly higher than in DCM patients. Heart failure classification and history of atrial fibrillation were similar in CAD and DCM in CRT patients. There was no significant difference in mortality and first ICD shock delivery between CAD and DCM after 1 year of follow-up. Heart failure symptoms showed significant improvement in CRT patients irrespective of the underlying disease.

CONCLUSION

ICD and CRT patients in the DEVICE registry showed similar short-term outcome irrespective of their underlying disease etiology. Except older age and preponderance of males, clinical characteristics, device selection and outcome of ICD or CRT patients in the German DEVICE registry are comparable with patients from randomized trials.

Longitudinal study of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: methods and clinical characteristics of patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for primary prevention in contemporary practice

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are increasingly used for primary prevention after randomized, controlled trials demonstrating that they reduce the risk of death in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The extent to which the clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of unselected, community-based patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction undergoing primary prevention ICD implantation in a real-world setting compare with those enrolled in the randomized, controlled trials is not well characterized. This study is being conducted to address these questions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study cohort includes consecutive patients undergoing primary prevention ICD placement between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2009 in 7 health plans. Baseline clinical characteristics were acquired from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. Longitudinal data collection is underway, and will include hospitalization, mortality, and resource use from standardized health plan data archives. Data regarding ICD therapies will be obtained through chart abstraction and adjudicated by a panel of experts in device therapy. Compared with the populations of primary prevention ICD therapy randomized, controlled trials, the cohort (n=2621) is on average significantly older (by 2.5-6.5 years), more often female, more often from racial and ethnic minority groups, and has a higher burden of coexisting conditions. The cohort is similar, however, to a national population undergoing primary prevention ICD placement.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing primary prevention ICD implantation in this study differ from those enrolled in the randomized, controlled trials that established the efficacy of ICDs. Understanding a broad range of health outcomes, including ICD therapies, will provide patients, clinicians, and policy makers with contemporary data to inform decision-making.

Brain natriuretic peptide-guided therapy in the inpatient management of decompensated heart failure

Heart failure is extremely prevalent and is associated with significant mortality, morbidity and cost. Studies have already established mortality benefit with the use of neurohormonal blockade therapy in systolic failure. Unfortunately, physical signs and symptoms of heart failure lack diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, and medication doses proven to improve mortality in clinical trials are often not achieved. Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) has proven to be of clinical use in the diagnosis and prognosis of heart failure, and recent efforts have been taken to further elucidate its role in guiding heart failure management. Multiple studies have been conducted on outpatient guided management, and although still controversial, there is a trend towards improved outcomes. Inpatient studies are lacking, but preliminary data suggest various BNP cut-off values, as well as percentage changes in BNP, that could be useful in predicting outcomes and improving mortality. In the future, heart failure management will probably involve an algorithm using clinical assessment and a multibiomarker-guided approach.

Circulation: Heart Failure Editors' Picks

The following are highlights from Circulation: Heart Failure Topic Review. This series will summarize the most important articles, as selected by the editors, that have published in the Circulation portfolio. The objective of this series is to provide our readership with a timely comprehensive selection of important papers that are relevant to the heart failure audience. The studies included in this article represent the most noteworthy research in the areas of heart failure and electrophysiology.

Device therapy in patients with heart failure and advanced age: too much too late?

Expanding indications for implantable cardiac rhythm devices coupled with the aging of the population have led to a progressive rise in the number of elderly patients referred for device implantation. However, the value of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in elderly patients remains unproven, in part because few patients over 75 years of age were enrolled in the major device trials. In this article, we summarize the current evidence base regarding the use of device therapy in elderly heart failure patients. We review the efficacy, complications, indications, cost, and current controversies surrounding the use of ICDs and CRT in the geriatric age group. We conclude that reduced benefit coupled with higher complication rates and associated higher costs make it unlikely that the net clinical benefit of an ICD is favorable in most patients over 75 to 80 years of age. Conversely, preliminary data indicate that elderly patients undergoing CRT experience improved quality of life at acceptable cost, suggesting that CRT may be an attractive therapeutic option in appropriately selected patients of advanced age.

Prevalence and predictors of off-label use of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients enrolled in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Implantable Cardiac-Defibrillator Registry

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the study was to define the extent and nature of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device usage outside consensus guidelines using national data.

BACKGROUND

Recent literature has shown that the application of CRT in clinical practice frequently does not adhere to evidence-based consensus guidelines. Factors underlying these practices have not been fully explored.

METHODS

From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's Implantable Cardiac-Defibrillator Registry, we defined a cohort of 45,392 cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) implants between January 2006 and June 2008 with a primary prevention indication. We defined "off-label" implants as those in which the ejection fraction was >35%, the New York Heart Association functional class was below III, or the QRS interval duration was <120 ms in the absence of a documented need for ventricular pacing. The relationships between patient, implanting physician, and hospital characteristics with off-label use were explored with multivariable hierarchical logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Overall, 23.7% of devices were placed without meeting all 3 implant criteria, most often due to New York Heart Association functional class below III (13.1% of implants) or QRS interval duration <120 ms (12.0%). Atrial fibrillation/flutter, previous percutaneous coronary intervention, and the performance of an electrophysiology study before implant were independently associated with increased odds of off-label use, whereas diabetes mellitus, increasing age, and female sex were associated with decreased odds. Physician training and insurance payer were weakly associated with the likelihood of off-label use.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 1 in 4 patients receiving CRT devices in the study time frame did not meet guideline-based indications. Given the evolving evidence base supporting the use of CRT, these practices require careful scrutiny.