Jacob Abraham1, Rupinder Bharmi2, Orvar Jonsson3, Guilherme H Oliveira4, Andre Artis5, Ali Valika6, Robert Capodilupo7, Philip B Adamson2, Gregory Roberts2, Nirav Dalal2, Akshay S Desai8, Raymond L Benza9. 1. Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Research and Data Science, Providence Heart Institute, Portland, Oregon. 2. Abbott, Sylmar, California. 3. Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 4. Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute, University Hospitals, Cleveland, Ohio. 5. Methodist Hospitals, Merrillville, Indiana. 6. Advocate Heart Institute, Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital, Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois. 7. Catholic Medical Center, Manchester, New Hampshire. 8. Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 9. The Cardiovascular Institute, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
Importance: In a randomized clinical trial, heart failure (HF) hospitalizations were lower in patients managed with guidance from an implantable pulmonary artery pressure sensor compared with usual care. It remains unclear if ambulatory monitoring could also improve long-term clinical outcomes in real-world practice. Objective: To determine the association between ambulatory hemodynamic monitoring and rates of HF hospitalization at 12 months in clinical practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: This matched cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries used claims data collected between June 1, 2014, and March 31, 2016. Medicare patients who received implants of a pulmonary artery pressure sensor were identified from the 100% Medicare claims database. Each patient who received an implant was matched to a control patient by demographic features, history of HF hospitalization, and number of all-cause hospitalizations. Propensity scoring based on comorbidities (arrhythmia, hypertension, diabetes, pulmonary disease, and renal disease) was used for additional matching. Data analysis was completed from July 2017 through January 2019. Exposures: Implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitoring system. Main Outcomes and Measures: The rates of HF hospitalization were compared using the Andersen-Gill method. Days lost owing to events were compared using a nonparametric bootstrap method. Results: The study cohort consisted of 1087 patients who received an implantable pulmonary artery pressure sensors and 1087 matched control patients. The treatment and control cohorts were well matched by age (mean [SD], 72.7 [10.2] years vs 72.9 [10.1] years) and sex (381 of 1087 female patients [35.1%] in each group), medical history, comorbidities, and timing of preimplant HF hospitalization. At 12 months postimplant, 616 HF hospitalizations occurred in the treatment cohort compared with 784 HF hospitalizations in the control cohort. The rate of HF hospitalization was lower in the treatment cohort at 12 months postimplant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.65-0.89]; P < .001). The percentage of days lost to HF hospitalizations or death were lower in the treatment group (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.64-0.84]; P < .001) and the percentage of days lost owing to all-cause hospitalization or death were also lower (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.68-0.88]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Patients with HF who were implanted with a pulmonary artery pressure sensor had lower rates of HF hospitalization than matched controls and spent more time alive out of hospital. Ambulatory hemodynamic monitoring may improve outcomes in patients with chronic HF.
Importance: In a randomized clinical trial, heart failure (HF) hospitalizations were lower in patients managed with guidance from an implantable pulmonary artery pressure sensor compared with usual care. It remains unclear if ambulatory monitoring could also improve long-term clinical outcomes in real-world practice. Objective: To determine the association between ambulatory hemodynamic monitoring and rates of HF hospitalization at 12 months in clinical practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: This matched cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries used claims data collected between June 1, 2014, and March 31, 2016. Medicare patients who received implants of a pulmonary artery pressure sensor were identified from the 100% Medicare claims database. Each patient who received an implant was matched to a control patient by demographic features, history of HF hospitalization, and number of all-cause hospitalizations. Propensity scoring based on comorbidities (arrhythmia, hypertension, diabetes, pulmonary disease, and renal disease) was used for additional matching. Data analysis was completed from July 2017 through January 2019. Exposures: Implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitoring system. Main Outcomes and Measures: The rates of HF hospitalization were compared using the Andersen-Gill method. Days lost owing to events were compared using a nonparametric bootstrap method. Results: The study cohort consisted of 1087 patients who received an implantable pulmonary artery pressure sensors and 1087 matched control patients. The treatment and control cohorts were well matched by age (mean [SD], 72.7 [10.2] years vs 72.9 [10.1] years) and sex (381 of 1087 female patients [35.1%] in each group), medical history, comorbidities, and timing of preimplant HF hospitalization. At 12 months postimplant, 616 HF hospitalizations occurred in the treatment cohort compared with 784 HF hospitalizations in the control cohort. The rate of HF hospitalization was lower in the treatment cohort at 12 months postimplant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.65-0.89]; P < .001). The percentage of days lost to HF hospitalizations or death were lower in the treatment group (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.64-0.84]; P < .001) and the percentage of days lost owing to all-cause hospitalization or death were also lower (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.68-0.88]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Patients with HF who were implanted with a pulmonary artery pressure sensor had lower rates of HF hospitalization than matched controls and spent more time alive out of hospital. Ambulatory hemodynamic monitoring may improve outcomes in patients with chronic HF.
Authors: Adam D DeVore; Bradley G Hammill; N Chantelle Hardy; Zubin J Eapen; Eric D Peterson; Adrian F Hernandez Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael R Zile; Tom D Bennett; Stephanie El Hajj; Fred J Kueffer; Catalin F Baicu; William T Abraham; Robert C Bourge; Lynne Warner Stevenson Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Friedrich Koehler; Kerstin Koehler; Oliver Deckwart; Sandra Prescher; Karl Wegscheider; Bridget-Anne Kirwan; Sebastian Winkler; Eik Vettorazzi; Leonhard Bruch; Michael Oeff; Christian Zugck; Gesine Doerr; Herbert Naegele; Stefan Störk; Christian Butter; Udo Sechtem; Christiane Angermann; Guntram Gola; Roland Prondzinsky; Frank Edelmann; Sebastian Spethmann; Sebastian M Schellong; P Christian Schulze; Johann Bauersachs; Brunhilde Wellge; Christoph Schoebel; Milos Tajsic; Henryk Dreger; Stefan D Anker; Karl Stangl Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-08-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Sarwat I Chaudhry; Jennifer A Mattera; Jeptha P Curtis; John A Spertus; Jeph Herrin; Zhenqiu Lin; Christopher O Phillips; Beth V Hodshon; Lawton S Cooper; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Philip B Adamson; Michael R Zile; Yong K Cho; Tom D Bennett; Robert C Bourge; Mark F Aaron; Juan M Aranda; William T Abraham; Fred J Kueffer; Robert T Taepke Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2011-03-30 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Naoki Okumura; Pardeep S Jhund; Jianjian Gong; Martin P Lefkowitz; Adel R Rizkala; Jean L Rouleau; Victor C Shi; Karl Swedberg; Michael R Zile; Scott D Solomon; Milton Packer; John J V McMurray Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: William T Abraham; Lynne W Stevenson; Robert C Bourge; Jo Ann Lindenfeld; Jordan G Bauman; Philip B Adamson Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Bryana N Baginski; Kaileigh A Byrne; Dev G Vaz; Regina Barber; Dawn Blackhurst; Thomas P Tibbett; Jason L Guichard Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2021-01-27