Analysis of Temporal Trends and Variation in the Use of Defibrillation Testing in Contemporary Practice

Defibrillation Threshold Testing for Right-sided Device Implants: A Review to Inform Shared Decision-making, in Association with the British Heart Rhythm Society

Prevention of sudden death using ICDs requires the reliable delivery of a high-energy shock to successfully terminate VF. Until more recently, the device implant procedure included conducting defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing involving VF induction and shock delivery to ensure efficacy. Large clinical trials, including SIMPLE and NORDIC ICD, have subsequently demonstrated that this is unnecessary, with a practice of omitting DFT testing having no impact on subsequent clinical outcomes. However, these studies specifically excluded patients requiring devices implanted on the right side, in whom the shock vector is significantly different and smaller studies suggest a higher DFT. In this review, the data regarding the use of DFT testing, focusing on right-sided implants, and the results of a survey of current UK practice are presented. In addition, a strategy of shared decision-making when it comes to deciding on the use of DFT testing during right-sided ICD implant procedures is proposed.

Rationale and design of the Lead Evaluation for Defibrillation and Reliability study: Safety and efficacy of a novel ICD lead design

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) are indicated for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac arrest. Despite enhancements in design and technologies, the ICD lead is the most vulnerable component of the ICD system and failure of ICD leads remains a significant clinical problem. A novel, small-diameter, lumenless, catheter-delivered, defibrillator lead was developed with the aim to improve long-term reliability.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Lead Evaluation for Defibrillation and Reliability (LEADR) study is a multi-center, single-arm, Bayesian, adaptive design, pre-market interventional pivotal clinical study. Up to 60 study sites from around the world will participate in the study. Patients indicated for a de novo ICD will undergo defibrillation testing at implantation and clinical assessments at baseline, implant, pre-hospital discharge, 3 months, 6 months, and every 6 months thereafter until official study closure. Patients may be participating for a minimum of 18 months to approximately 3 years. Fracture-free survival will be evaluated using a Bayesian statistical method that incorporates both virtual patient data (combination of bench testing to failure with in-vivo use condition data) with clinical patients. The clinical subject sample size will be determined using decision rules for number of subject enrollments and follow-up time based upon the observed number of fractures at certain time points in the study. The adaptive study design will therefore result in a minimum of 500 and a maximum of 900 patients enrolled.

CONCLUSION

The LEADR Clinical Study was designed to efficiently provide evidence for short- and long-term safety and efficacy of a novel lead design using Bayesian methods including a novel virtual patient approach.

Trends in Use of Single- vs Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Among Patients Without a Pacing Indication, 2010-2018

IMPORTANCE

Use of dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) systems among patients without a pacing indication is an example of low-value care given higher procedural risks, higher costs, and little evidence for benefit from an atrial lead. However, variation in the use of dual-chamber systems was present among patients without a pacing indication.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the temporal trends and hospital variation in use of single- and dual-chamber ICD implantation among patients without a pacing indication undergoing first-time ICD implantation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted using the US National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. A total of 266 182 patients undergoing initial implantation of a single- or dual-chamber transvenous ICD without a bradycardia pacing indication, class I or II cardiac resynchronization therapy indication, or history of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter were included. The study was conducted from April 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018; data analysis was performed from October 19, 2020, to January 5, 2022.

EXPOSURES

Implantation of a single- or dual-chamber ICD.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Temporal trends among patients undergoing single- vs dual-chamber ICDs were determined using the Cochran-Armitage trend test, and hospital-level variation using adjusted hospital median odds ratios was examined.

RESULTS

A total of 266 182 patients (single-chamber ICD, 134 925; dual-chamber ICD, 131 257) were included in this analysis; mean (SD) age was 58.0 (14.0) years and 91 990 patients (68.2%) were men. The use of dual-chamber ICDs decreased from 64.7% (n = 15 694) in 2010 to 42.2% (n = 9762) in 2018 (P < .001). Adjusted for patient characteristics, the median hospital-level proportion of single-chamber ICDs increased from 42.9% (95% CI, 42.6%-45.0%) in 2010 to 50.0% (95% CI, 47.8%-51.0%) in 2018. The median odds ratio for the use of dual-chamber ICDs, adjusted for patient characteristics, was 1.6 (95% CI, 1.6-1.8) in 2010 and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.5-1.8) in 2018, indicating decreasing but persistent variation in use.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this national study of US patients undergoing first-time ICD implantation without a clinical indication for an atrial lead, the use of dual-chamber devices decreased. However, institutional variability in the use of atrial leads persists, suggesting differences in individual or institutional cultures of real-world practice and opportunity to reduce this low-value practice.

Variation in regional implantation patterns of cardiac implantable electronic device in Switzerland

Introduction

There is a substantial geographical variation in the rates of pacemaker (PM), implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantation across European countries. We assessed the extent of regional variation and potential determinants of such variation.

Methods

We conducted a population-based analysis using discharge data for PM/ICD/CRT implantations from all Swiss acute care hospitals during 2013–2016. We derived hospital service areas (HSA) by analyzing patient flows. We calculated age- and sex-standardized rates and quantified variation using the extremal quotient (EQ) and the systemic component of variation (SCV). We estimated the reduction in variance of crude implantation rates across HSAs using multilevel regression models, with incremental adjustment for age and sex, language, socioeconomic factors, population health, diabetes mellitus, and the density of cardiologists on the HSA level.

Results

We analyzed implantations of 8129 PM, 1461 ICD, and 1411 CRT from 25 Swiss HSAs. The mean age- and sex-standardized implantation rate was 29 (range 8–57) per 100,000 persons for PM, 5 (1–9) for ICD, and 5 (2–8) for CRT. There was a very high variation in PM (EQ 7.0; SCV 12.6) and ICD (EQ 7.2; SCV 11.3) and a high variation in CRT implantation rates (EQ 3.9; SCV 7.1) across HSAs. Adjustments for age and sex, language, socioeconomic factors, population health, diabetes mellitus, and density of cardiologists explained 94% of the variance in ICD and 87.5% of the variance in CRT implantation rates, but only 36.3% of the variance in PM implantation rates. Women had substantially lower PM/ICD/CRT implantation rates than men.

Conclusion

Switzerland has a very high regional variation in PM/ICD implantation and a high variation in CRT implantation rates. Women had substantially lower implantation rates than men. A large share of the variation in PM procedure rates remained unexplained which might reflect variations in physicians’ preferences and practices.

High Defibrillation Threshold: Brace For Impact

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) constitutes a major public health problem and accounts for approximately 50% of all cardiovascular deaths This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Uptake of evidence by physicians: De-adoption of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents after the TREAT trial

Background

Variation in de-adoption of ineffective or unsafe treatments is not well-understood. We examined de-adoption of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) in anemia treatment among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) following new clinical evidence of harm and ineffectiveness (the TREAT trial) and the FDA’s revision of its safety warning.

Method

We used a segmented regression approach to estimate changes in use of epoetin alfa (EPO) and darbepoetin alfa (DPO) in the commercial, Medicare Advantage (MA) and Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) populations. We also examined how changes in both trends and levels of use were associated with physicians’ characteristics.

Results

Use of DPO and EPO declined over the study period. There were no consistent changes in DPO trend across insurance groups, but the level of DPO use decreased right after the FDA revision in all groups. The decline in EPO use trend was faster after the TREAT trial for all groups. Nephrologists were largely more responsive to evidence than primary care physicians. Differences by physician’s gender, and age were not consistent across insurance populations and types of ESA.

Conclusions

Physician specialty has a dominant role in prescribing decision, and that specializations with higher use of treatment (nephrologists) were more responsive to new evidence of unsafety and ineffectiveness.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-021-02491-y.

Use and Outcomes of Dual Chamber or Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Defibrillators Among Older Patients Requiring Ventricular Pacing in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Registry

IMPORTANCE

Frequent right ventricular (RV) pacing can cause and exacerbate heart failure. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes among patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction who need frequent RV pacing, but the patterns of use of CRT vs dual chamber (DC) devices and the associated outcomes among these patients in clinical practice is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To assess outcomes, variability in use of device type, and trends in use of device type over time among patients undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation who were likely to require frequent RV pacing but who did not have a class I indication for CRT.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study used the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) ICD Registry. A total of 3100 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing first-time implantation of CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) or DC-ICD from 2010 to 2016 who had a class I or II guideline ventricular bradycardia pacing indication but not a class I indication for CRT were included. Data were analyzed from August 2018 to October 2019.

EXPOSURES

Implantation of a CRT-D or DC-ICD.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

All-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and complications were ascertained from Medicare claims data. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and Fine-Gray models were used to evaluate 1-year mortality and heart failure hospitalization, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate 30-day and 90-day complications. All models accounted for clustering. The median odds ratio (MOR) was used to assess variability and represents the odds that a randomly selected patient receiving CRT-D at a hospital with high implant rates would receive CRT-D if they had been treated at a hospital with low CRT-D implant rates.

RESULTS

A total of 3100 individuals were included. The mean (SD) age was 76.3 (6.4) years, and 2500 (80.6%) were men. The 1698 patients (54.7%) receiving CRT-D were more likely than those receiving DC-ICD to have third-degree atrioventricular block (828 [48.8%] vs 432 [30.8%]; P < .001), nonischemic cardiomyopathy (508 [29.9%] vs 255 [18.2%]; P < .001), and prior heart failure hospitalizations (703 [41.4%] vs 421 [30.0%]; P < .001). Following adjustment, CRT-D was associated with lower 1-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P = .001) and heart failure hospitalization (subdistribution HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.97; P = .02) and no difference in complications compared with DC-ICD. Hospital variation in use of CRT was present (MOR, 2.00), and the use of CRT in this cohort was higher over time (654 of 1351 [48.4%] in 2010 vs 362 of 594 [60.9%] in 2016; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study of older patients in contemporary practice undergoing ICD implantation with a bradycardia pacing indication but without a class I indication for CRT, CRT-D was associated with better outcomes compared with DC devices. Variability in use of device type was observed, and the rate of CRT implantation increased over time.