Device implantation rates in heart failure patients with LVEF <50% varied widely, with defibrillators implanted more often in implantation centers than referral centers (36% vs. 25%, P<0.001).
Cross-Sectional (n=6,666)
Yes
There is significant underutilization and inter-centre variation in guideline-directed device therapy for heart failure patients with reduced LVEF in real-world practice.
Absolute Event Rate: 36% vs 25%
p-value: p=<0.001
AIMS: Despite previous surveys regarding device implantation rates in heart failure (HF), insight into the real-world management with devices is scarce. Therefore, we investigated device implantation rates in HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in 34 Dutch centres. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cross-sectional outpatient registry was conducted in 6666 patients with LVEF < 50% and with information about device implantation available 74 (66-81) years of age; 64% male. Patients were classified into conventional pacemakers (PM, n = 562), implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD, n = 1165), and cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator function (CRT-D, n = 885) or pacemaker function only (CRT-P, n = 248), or no device (n = 3806). Centres were divided into ICD-implanting and CRT-implanting and referral centres. Overall, 17.5% had an ICD, 13.3% CRT-D, 3.7% CRT-P, and 8.4% PM. Of those with LVEF ≤ 30%, 42.5% had ICD or CRT-D therapy. A large variation in implantation rates existed between centres: 3-51% for ICD therapy, 0.3-44% for CRT-D therapy, 0-11% for CRT-P therapy, and 0-25% PM therapy. Implantation centres showed higher implantation rates of ICD, CRT-D, and CRT-P compared with referral centres 36% vs. 25% for defibrillators (ICD or CRT-D) and 17% vs. 9% for CRT devices (CRT-D or CRT-P), respectively, P < 0.001, independently of other factors. A large number of clinical factors were predictive for device usage. Among other, LVEF < 40% and male sex were independent positive predictors for ICD/CRT-D use odds ratio (OR) = 3.33, P < 0.001; OR = 1.87, P = 0.019, respectively. Older age was independently associated with less ICD/CRT-D (OR = 0.96 per year, P < 0.001) and more CRT-P/PM use (OR = 1.03 per year, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In this large Dutch HF registry, less than half of the patients with reduced LVEF received an ICD or CRT, even if LVEF was ≤30%, and a large variation between centres existed. Patients from implantation centres had more often ICD or CRT. More uniformity regarding guideline-based use of device therapy in clinical practice is needed.
Raafs et al. (Tue,) conducted a cross-sectional in Chronic Heart Failure with reduced LVEF (n=6,666). Device therapy (ICD, CRT-D, CRT-P, PM) vs. Referral centres was evaluated on Defibrillator (ICD or CRT-D) implantation rate in implantation vs. referral centres (p=<0.001). Device implantation rates in heart failure patients with LVEF <50% varied widely, with defibrillators implanted more often in implantation centers than referral centers (36% vs. 25%, P<0.001).