Key result
Cardiac resynchronization therapy was used in 12.4% of hospitalized heart failure patients, with lower new placement rates in black patients (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.36-0.57) and the northeast.
Why the study?
What are the patterns of use and factors associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy placement in patients hospitalized with heart failure?
Observational (n=33,898)
Yes
What are the patterns of use and factors associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy placement in patients hospitalized with heart failure?
Real-world utilization of CRT in heart failure patients shows significant disparities based on race, geographic region, and age, highlighting gaps in guideline-directed device therapy.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Racial and regional CRT disparities in hospitalized HF warrant attention; leaves open whether targeted interventions can improve equitable device access.
BACKGROUND: The frequency and characterization of patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are largely unknown since the publication of pivotal clinical trials and subsequent incorporation of CRT into the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed 33,898 patients admitted from January 2005 through September 2007 to 228 hospitals participating in the American Heart Association's Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure program. There were 4201 patients (12.4%) discharged alive with CRT, including 811 new implants. Patients discharged with CRT were older (median age, 75 versus 72 years) and had lower median left ventricular ejection fraction (30% versus 38%), more frequent ischemic cardiomyopathy (58% versus 45%), more history of atrial fibrillation (38% versus 27%), and higher rates of beta-blocker and aldosterone antagonist use (P<0.0001 for all) than those without CRT. We found that 4.8% of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <or=35% were discharged with a new CRT implant, which varied greatly by hospital. Ten percent of patients discharged with a new CRT implant had a left ventricular ejection fraction >35%. Major factors associated with lower rates of new CRT placement were treatment in the northeast (odds ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.53), black race (odds ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.57), increasing left ventricular ejection fraction per 10% (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 0.60), and increasing age per 10 years in those >70 years of age (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Although CRT is a recent evidence-based therapy for heart failure, patterns of use differ significantly from clinical trials and published guidelines. Important variations also exist for CRT therapy based on race, geographic region, comorbidities, and age and need to be addressed through further study and/or quality-of-care initiatives.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Piccini et al. (2008) conducted an observational in Heart Failure (n=33,898). Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) vs. No CRT was evaluated on Discharge with CRT. Cardiac resynchronization therapy was used in 12.4% of hospitalized heart failure patients, with lower new placement rates in black patients (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.36-0.57) and the northeast.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: