Comparative Effectiveness of Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in Older Heart Failure Patients With Diabetes Mellitus

Heart Failure Strategically Focused Research Network: Summary of Results and Future Directions

Heart failure remains among the most common and morbid health conditions. The Heart Failure Strategically Focused Research Network (HF SFRN) was funded by the American Heart Association to facilitate collaborative, high-impact research in the field of heart failure across the domains of basic, clinical, and population research. The Network was also charged with developing training opportunities for young investigators. Four centers were funded in 2016: Duke University, University of Colorado, University of Utah, and Massachusetts General Hospital-University of Massachusetts. This report summarizes the aims of each center and major research accomplishments, as well as training outcomes from the HF SFRN.

Comparative Effectiveness of Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in Older Heart Failure Patients With Diabetes Mellitus

Background

There are conflicting data regarding the benefit of primary prevention implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of ICD placement in patients with diabetes mellitus and HF with reduced ejection fraction.

Methods and Results

Data were obtained from the Get With the Guidelines–Health Failure registry, linked with claims from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. We used a Cox proportional hazards model censored at 5 years with propensity score matching. Of the 17 186 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims database (6540 with diabetes mellitus; 38%), 1677 (646 with diabetes mellitus; 39%) received an ICD during their index HF hospitalization or were prescribed an ICD at discharge. Patients with diabetes mellitus and an ICD (n=646), as compared with those without an ICD (n=1031), were more likely to be younger (74 versus 78 years of age) and have coronary artery disease (68% versus 60%). After propensity matching, ICD use among patients with diabetes mellitus, as compared with those without an ICD, was associated with a reduced risk of all‐cause mortality at 5 years after HF discharge (54% versus 59%; multivariable hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64–0.82; P<0.0001). Ischemic heart disease did not modify the association between ICD use and all‐cause mortality (P=0.95 for interaction). Similar results were seen in patients without diabetes mellitus.

Conclusions

Primary prevention ICD use among older patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction and diabetes mellitus was associated with a reduced risk of all‐cause mortality. Our analysis supports current guideline recommendations for implantation of primary prevention ICDs among older patients with diabetes mellitus and HF with reduced ejection fraction.