Paul S Chan1, Harlan M Krumholz2, John A Spertus3, Lesley H Curtis4, Yan Li5, Bradley G Hammill6, Brahmajee K Nallamothu7. 1. Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO; University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO. Electronic address: pchan@saint-lukes.org. 2. Section of Cardiovascular Medicine and the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, Department of Medicine, the Section of Health Policy and Administration, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT. 3. Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO; University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO. 4. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. 5. Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO. 6. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. 7. Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Health Services Research & Development Center of Excellence, Ann Arbor, MI; Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, their effectiveness in survivors of "inhospital" cardiac arrest-a population with different arrest etiologies and higher illness acuity than out-of-hospital cardiac arrest-is unknown. We therefore sought to conduct a comparative effectiveness study of ICD therapy in survivors of inhospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: We linked data from a national inpatient cardiac arrest registry with Medicare files and identified 1,200 adults from 267 hospitals between 2000 and 2008 who were discharged after surviving an inhospital cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia and who otherwise met traditional inclusion and exclusion criteria for secondary prevention ICD trials. The association between ICD treatment and long-term mortality was evaluated using an optimal match (≤4 controls for each ICD patient) propensity-score analysis. RESULTS: Of 1,200 survivors, 343 (28.6%) received an ICD during the index hospitalization. Overall, 3-year mortality was 44.2%, with higher unadjusted mortality in the non-ICD versus the ICD group (46.9% vs 37.3%; log-rank; P < .001). After successfully matching 343 patients treated with ICDs with 823 untreated patients by propensity score, ICD treatment was associated with a 24% lower mortality rate (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97; P = .025). This lower mortality was mediated by lower rates of out-of-hospital deaths among ICD-treated patients (22.1% vs 30.8%; adjusted HR 0.71 [0.52-0.96]; P = .019), whereas deaths occurring during a readmission were similar (15.2% vs 16.1%; adjusted HR 0.89 [95% CI 0.60-1.32]; P = .56). CONCLUSIONS: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in survivors of inhospital cardiac arrest due to a pulseless ventricular rhythm is used uncommonly but associated with lower long-term mortality. Given that fewer than 3 in 10 eligible survivors are treated with ICDs after surviving an inhospital cardiac arrest, our findings highlight a potentially modifiable process of care, which could improve long-term survival in this high-risk population.
BACKGROUND: Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, their effectiveness in survivors of "inhospital" cardiac arrest-a population with different arrest etiologies and higher illness acuity than out-of-hospital cardiac arrest-is unknown. We therefore sought to conduct a comparative effectiveness study of ICD therapy in survivors of inhospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: We linked data from a national inpatient cardiac arrest registry with Medicare files and identified 1,200 adults from 267 hospitals between 2000 and 2008 who were discharged after surviving an inhospital cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia and who otherwise met traditional inclusion and exclusion criteria for secondary prevention ICD trials. The association between ICD treatment and long-term mortality was evaluated using an optimal match (≤4 controls for each ICDpatient) propensity-score analysis. RESULTS: Of 1,200 survivors, 343 (28.6%) received an ICD during the index hospitalization. Overall, 3-year mortality was 44.2%, with higher unadjusted mortality in the non-ICD versus the ICD group (46.9% vs 37.3%; log-rank; P < .001). After successfully matching 343 patients treated with ICDs with 823 untreated patients by propensity score, ICD treatment was associated with a 24% lower mortality rate (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97; P = .025). This lower mortality was mediated by lower rates of out-of-hospital deaths among ICD-treated patients (22.1% vs 30.8%; adjusted HR 0.71 [0.52-0.96]; P = .019), whereas deaths occurring during a readmission were similar (15.2% vs 16.1%; adjusted HR 0.89 [95% CI 0.60-1.32]; P = .56). CONCLUSIONS: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in survivors of inhospital cardiac arrest due to a pulseless ventricular rhythm is used uncommonly but associated with lower long-term mortality. Given that fewer than 3 in 10 eligible survivors are treated with ICDs after surviving an inhospital cardiac arrest, our findings highlight a potentially modifiable process of care, which could improve long-term survival in this high-risk population.
Authors: Laurie J Morrison; Robert W Neumar; Janice L Zimmerman; Mark S Link; L Kristin Newby; Paul W McMullan; Terry Vanden Hoek; Colleen C Halverson; Lynn Doering; Mary Ann Peberdy; Dana P Edelson Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-03-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Raina M Merchant; Lin Yang; Lance B Becker; Robert A Berg; Vinay Nadkarni; Graham Nichol; Brendan G Carr; Nandita Mitra; Steven M Bradley; Benjamin S Abella; Peter W Groeneveld Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: S J Connolly; A P Hallstrom; R Cappato; E B Schron; K H Kuck; D P Zipes; H L Greene; S Boczor; M Domanski; D Follmann; M Gent; R S Roberts Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Ian Jacobs; Vinay Nadkarni; Jan Bahr; Robert A Berg; John E Billi; Leo Bossaert; Pascal Cassan; Ashraf Coovadia; Kate D'Este; Judith Finn; Henry Halperin; Anthony Handley; Johan Herlitz; Robert Hickey; Ahamed Idris; Walter Kloeck; Gregory Luke Larkin; Mary Elizabeth Mancini; Pip Mason; Gregory Mears; Koenraad Monsieurs; William Montgomery; Peter Morley; Graham Nichol; Jerry Nolan; Kazuo Okada; Jeffrey Perlman; Michael Shuster; Petter Andreas Steen; Fritz Sterz; James Tibballs; Sergio Timerman; Tanya Truitt; David Zideman Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-11-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Paul S Chan; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Harlan M Krumholz; John A Spertus; Yan Li; Bradley G Hammill; Lesley H Curtis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 91.245