Comparative Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Primary Prevention in Women

Emily P. Zeitler, Anne S. Hellkamp, Phillip Schulte, Gregg C. Fonarow, Adrian F. Hernandez, Eric D. Peterson, Gillian D. Sanders, Clyde W. Yancy, Sana M. Al-Khatib

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Clinical trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention enrolled a limited number of women. We sought to examine clinical practice data to compare survival rates among women with heart failure with or without a primary prevention ICD. Methods and Results-We linked data from 264 US hospitals included in the Get With The Guidelines for Heart Failure registry with data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. From these sources, we propensity score matched 430 women with heart failure who received a primary prevention ICD to 430 women who did not; we further adjusted using a Cox proportional hazards model. Median follow-up was 3.4 and 3.0 years. For comparison, we matched 859 men receiving an ICD with 859 who did not; median follow-up was 3.9 versus 2.9 years. In the matched cohorts, an ICD was associated with similarly better survival in women (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.92; P=0.003) and men (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.87 P 0.001). There was no interaction between sex and presence of an ICD with respect to survival (P = 0.79). Conclusions-Among patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, a primary prevention ICD was associated with a significant survival advantage among women and among men. These findings support guideline-directed use of primary prevention ICDs in eligible patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalCirculation: Heart Failure
Volume9
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

Implantable Defibrillators
Primary Prevention
Heart Failure
Survival
Guidelines
Confidence Intervals
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (U.S.)
Propensity Score
Proportional Hazards Models
Stroke Volume
Registries
Survival Rate
Clinical Trials

Keywords

  • Comparative effectiveness research
  • heart failure
  • implantable cardioverter-defibrillators
  • morbidity
  • mortality
  • women

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Comparative Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Primary Prevention in Women. / Zeitler, Emily P.; Hellkamp, Anne S.; Schulte, Phillip; Fonarow, Gregg C.; Hernandez, Adrian F.; Peterson, Eric D.; Sanders, Gillian D.; Yancy, Clyde W.; Al-Khatib, Sana M.

In: Circulation: Heart Failure, Vol. 9, No. 1, 01.01.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Zeitler, EP, Hellkamp, AS, Schulte, P, Fonarow, GC, Hernandez, AF, Peterson, ED, Sanders, GD, Yancy, CW & Al-Khatib, SM 2016, 'Comparative Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Primary Prevention in Women', Circulation: Heart Failure, vol. 9, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.115.002630
Zeitler, Emily P. ; Hellkamp, Anne S. ; Schulte, Phillip ; Fonarow, Gregg C. ; Hernandez, Adrian F. ; Peterson, Eric D. ; Sanders, Gillian D. ; Yancy, Clyde W. ; Al-Khatib, Sana M. / Comparative Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Primary Prevention in Women. In: Circulation: Heart Failure. 2016 ; Vol. 9, No. 1.
@article{2b8680e81f494f3e94b36573d94e62a6,
title = "Comparative Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Primary Prevention in Women",
abstract = "Clinical trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention enrolled a limited number of women. We sought to examine clinical practice data to compare survival rates among women with heart failure with or without a primary prevention ICD. Methods and Results-We linked data from 264 US hospitals included in the Get With The Guidelines for Heart Failure registry with data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. From these sources, we propensity score matched 430 women with heart failure who received a primary prevention ICD to 430 women who did not; we further adjusted using a Cox proportional hazards model. Median follow-up was 3.4 and 3.0 years. For comparison, we matched 859 men receiving an ICD with 859 who did not; median follow-up was 3.9 versus 2.9 years. In the matched cohorts, an ICD was associated with similarly better survival in women (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95{\%} confidence interval, 0.66-0.92; P=0.003) and men (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95{\%} confidence interval, 0.67-0.87 P 0.001). There was no interaction between sex and presence of an ICD with respect to survival (P = 0.79). Conclusions-Among patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, a primary prevention ICD was associated with a significant survival advantage among women and among men. These findings support guideline-directed use of primary prevention ICDs in eligible patients.",
keywords = "Comparative effectiveness research, heart failure, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, morbidity, mortality, women",
author = "Zeitler, {Emily P.} and Hellkamp, {Anne S.} and Phillip Schulte and Fonarow, {Gregg C.} and Hernandez, {Adrian F.} and Peterson, {Eric D.} and Sanders, {Gillian D.} and Yancy, {Clyde W.} and Al-Khatib, {Sana M.}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.115.002630",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
journal = "Circulation: Heart Failure",
issn = "1941-3297",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Primary Prevention in Women

AU - Zeitler, Emily P.

AU - Hellkamp, Anne S.

AU - Schulte, Phillip

AU - Fonarow, Gregg C.

AU - Hernandez, Adrian F.

AU - Peterson, Eric D.

AU - Sanders, Gillian D.

AU - Yancy, Clyde W.

AU - Al-Khatib, Sana M.

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Clinical trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention enrolled a limited number of women. We sought to examine clinical practice data to compare survival rates among women with heart failure with or without a primary prevention ICD. Methods and Results-We linked data from 264 US hospitals included in the Get With The Guidelines for Heart Failure registry with data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. From these sources, we propensity score matched 430 women with heart failure who received a primary prevention ICD to 430 women who did not; we further adjusted using a Cox proportional hazards model. Median follow-up was 3.4 and 3.0 years. For comparison, we matched 859 men receiving an ICD with 859 who did not; median follow-up was 3.9 versus 2.9 years. In the matched cohorts, an ICD was associated with similarly better survival in women (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.92; P=0.003) and men (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.87 P 0.001). There was no interaction between sex and presence of an ICD with respect to survival (P = 0.79). Conclusions-Among patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, a primary prevention ICD was associated with a significant survival advantage among women and among men. These findings support guideline-directed use of primary prevention ICDs in eligible patients.

AB - Clinical trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention enrolled a limited number of women. We sought to examine clinical practice data to compare survival rates among women with heart failure with or without a primary prevention ICD. Methods and Results-We linked data from 264 US hospitals included in the Get With The Guidelines for Heart Failure registry with data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. From these sources, we propensity score matched 430 women with heart failure who received a primary prevention ICD to 430 women who did not; we further adjusted using a Cox proportional hazards model. Median follow-up was 3.4 and 3.0 years. For comparison, we matched 859 men receiving an ICD with 859 who did not; median follow-up was 3.9 versus 2.9 years. In the matched cohorts, an ICD was associated with similarly better survival in women (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.92; P=0.003) and men (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.87 P 0.001). There was no interaction between sex and presence of an ICD with respect to survival (P = 0.79). Conclusions-Among patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, a primary prevention ICD was associated with a significant survival advantage among women and among men. These findings support guideline-directed use of primary prevention ICDs in eligible patients.

KW - Comparative effectiveness research

KW - heart failure

KW - implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

KW - morbidity

KW - mortality

KW - women

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84955243430&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84955243430&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.115.002630

DO - 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.115.002630

M3 - Article

C2 - 26758365

AN - SCOPUS:84955243430

VL - 9

JO - Circulation: Heart Failure

JF - Circulation: Heart Failure

SN - 1941-3297

IS - 1

ER -