Key result
Patients with 3 or more device observations had a 42-fold higher risk of heart failure hospitalization within the next 30 days compared to patients with no device observations.
Why the study?
Do existing device diagnostic thresholds stratify the risk of heart failure hospitalization in patients with CRT-D devices?
Cohort (n=775)
Do existing device diagnostic thresholds stratify the risk of heart failure hospitalization in patients with CRT-D devices?
Multiple concurrent device diagnostic observations from CRT-D devices strongly predict the 30-day risk of heart failure hospitalization, enabling potential early intervention.
Patients with ≥3 device observations face markedly elevated 30-day HFH risk; leaves open whether alerts improve outcomes in prospective trials.
BACKGROUND: Heart failure hospitalizations (HFHs) cost the US health care system ∼$20 billion annually. Identifying patients at risk of HFH to enable timely intervention and prevent expensive hospitalization remains a challenge. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization devices with defibrillation capability (CRT-Ds) collect a host of diagnostic parameters that change with HF status and collectively have the potential to signal an increasing risk of HFH. These device-collected diagnostic parameters include activity, day and night heart rate, atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation (AT/AF) burden, mean rate during AT/AF, percent CRT pacing, number of shocks, and intrathoracic impedance. There are thresholds for these parameters that when crossed trigger a notification, referred to as device observation, which gets noted on the device report. We investigated if these existing device observations can stratify patients at varying risk of HFH. METHODS: We analyzed data from 775 patients (age: 69 ± 11 year, 68% male) with CRT-D devices followed for 13 ± 5 months with adjudicated HFHs. HFH rate was computed for increasing number of device observations. Data were analyzed by both excluding and including intrathoracic impedance. HFH risk was assessed at the time of a device interrogation session, and all the data between previous and current follow-up sessions were used to determine the HFH risk for the next 30 days. RESULTS: 2276 follow-up sessions in 775 patients were evaluated with 42 HFHs in 37 patients. Percentage of evaluations that were followed by an HFH within the next 30 days increased with increasing number of device observations. Patients with 3 or more device observations were at 42× HFH risk compared to patients with no device observation. Even after excluding intrathoracic impedance, the remaining device parameters effectively stratified patients at HFH risk. CONCLUSION: Available device observations could provide an effective method to stratify patients at varying risk of heart failure hospitalization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sharma et al. (2014) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=775). 3 or more device observations vs. No device observation was evaluated on Heart failure hospitalization within the next 30 days (42x risk). Patients with 3 or more device observations had a 42-fold higher risk of heart failure hospitalization within the next 30 days compared to patients with no device observations.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: