0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letter |

Association of Long vs Standard Detection Intervals for Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators With Hospitalizations and Costs FREE

Alessandro Proclemer, MD1; Angel Arenal, MD2; Maurizio Lunati, MD3; José Bautista Martìnez Ferrer, MD4; Ahmad Hersi, MBBS5; Laura Manotta, MS6; Maurizio Gasparini, MD7
[+] Author Affiliations
1Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria S. Maria della Misericordia, Udine, Italy
2Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
3Azienda Ospedaliera Niguarda Ca' Granda, Milan, Italy
4Hospital de Txagorritxu C/José Achotegui, Vitoria, Spain
5College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
6Medtronic Clinical Research Institute, Sesto San Giovanni, Italy
7Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy
JAMA. 2014;312(5):555-557. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.4783.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

The role of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in reducing sudden and overall mortality is established.1 Recently, an ICD programming strategy that allows delayed detection of arrhythmias was shown to reduce unnecessary and inappropriate therapies.2,3

In this exploratory analysis of the Avoid Delivering Therapies for Non-sustained Arrhythmias in ICD Patients III (ADVANCE III) trial, we assessed the association of programming a long-detection interval on hospitalizations, length of stay (LOS) in the hospital, and costs.

The ADVANCE III study design has been published.4 Briefly, at 94 international centers between 2008 and 2010, 1902 patients receiving their first ICD were randomized to a long-detection interval group (the number of intervals to detect arrhythmias was programmed at 30 of 40) or a standard interval group (18 of 24 intervals). Patients were blinded to assignment. In both groups, antitachycardia pacing during capacitor charge was activated. Patients were followed up every 3 months for 1 year.

Each institutional review board approved the study and written informed consent was obtained from each participant. Diagnosis, delivered therapies, recovery, and discharges dates for hospitalizations related to each adverse event were requested in the case report forms. An independent committee reviewed all events, querying the center in case of unclear information.

The economic effect was a prespecified secondary outcome. Overall and cardiovascular hospitalization rates, time to first hospitalization, and LOS in the hospital were exploratory outcomes. To account for different follow-up durations, the number of hospitalizations and LOS were adjusted by considering the total number of patient-years and estimating annual incidence rates. Time to first event curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method and survival distributions were compared by the log-rank test.

The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, codes were used to assign the proper diagnosis related group (and cost) for each hospitalization. Cost per patient-year was presented as mean and 95% confidence interval and was adjusted for the total number of patient-years. A mean cost ratio was performed to compare costs between groups. Stata version 12.0 (StataCorp) was used, and a 2-sided probability value of ≤.05 was used for declaring statistical significance.

Of 1902 patients randomized, the 948 in the long-detection interval and 954 in the standard interval groups presented similar demographics as previously described.2 During 12 months of follow-up, 546 patients reported 865 overall hospitalizations (473 hospitalizations in 302 patients in the standard interval group and 392 hospitalizations in 244 patients in the long-detection interval group) (Table).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable.  Rates of Hospitalizations, Length of Stay (LOS), and Mean Cost per Patient-Year

The long-detection interval group was associated with a longer time to the first overall hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.68-0.95]; P = .01) and cardiovascular hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67-0.98]; P = .03) compared with the standard interval group (Figure), and reductions in overall hospitalization rate (52.3 [95% CI, 47.7-57.3] vs 43.8 [95% CI, 39.6-48.4], respectively, per 100 patient-years; incidence rate ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.73-0.96]; P = .005) and LOS (470 [95% CI, 456-484] vs 407 [95% CI, 394-421] per 100 patient-years; incidence rate ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.83-0.91]; P < .001), without difference in mortality.2

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.
Time to Hospitalizations
Graphic Jump Location

Similar results were found for cardiovascular hospitalization rates and LOS (Table). The long-detection interval group was also associated with a mean reduction of $299 per patient-year for overall hospitalizations and $329 per patient-year for cardiovascular hospitalizations compared with the standard interval group (Table).

These exploratory analyses of the ADVANCE III trial found that a programming strategy combining a long-detection interval and antitachycardia pacing during charging was associated with an increase in the time to first hospitalization and reductions in hospitalization rate, LOS, and the cost per patient-year compared with standard interval programming.

The reduction in all-cause hospitalizations was mainly driven by the reduction in cardiovascular hospitalizations (P = .004). This result is consistent with the RELEVANT trial,5 which in contrast enrolled only patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators.

As a limitation, costs were estimated, not directly collected, and follow-up was limited to 1 year. These favorable results for resource use complement the demonstrated clinical effectiveness of the long-detection interval strategy and come without additional costs for the hospitals or patients.

Section Editor: Jody W. Zylke, MD, Senior Editor.

Corresponding Author: Maurizio Gasparini, MD, Chief of Electrophysiology and Pacing Unit, Humanitas Research Hospital, IRRCCS, Via Manzoni 56, 20089 Rozzano, Italy (maurizio.gasparini@humanitas.it).

Author Contributions: Dr Gasparini had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Proclemer, Lunati, Manotta, Gasparini.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Proclemer, Arenal, Ferrer, Hersi, Gasparini.

Drafting of the manuscript: Proclemer, Hersi, Gasparini.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Proclemer, Arenal, Lunati, Ferrer, Hersi, Manotta.

Statistical analysis: Arenal.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Manotta.

Study supervision: Lunati, Ferrer, Hersi, Gasparini.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr Arenal reported serving as consultant and speaker for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and St Jude. Dr Lunati reported serving as consultant and speaker for educational presentations for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, St Jude, and Sorin. Dr Gasparini reported serving on advisory boards for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: The ADVANCE III Study was supported by Medtronic Inc.

Role of the Sponsor: Medtronic had a role in the design and conduct of the study; had no role in the collection of data; had a role in the management; had no role in the analysis and interpretation of the data; had a role in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and had no role in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Contributions: We thank Axel Kloppe, MD (Medizinische Klinik II, Kardiologie und Angiologie, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil, Ruhr-Universität-Bochum, Bochum, Germany), Marcin Gulaj, MD (MSWiA Hospital, Bialystok, Poland), and Maurits C. E. F. Wijfels, PhD (St Antonius Ziekenhuis Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands), for their contributions in the acquisition and interpretation of the data. We also acknowledge all the contributions made by the investigators of the enrolling centers of the ADVANCE III Trial in the acquisition of the data. None of the individuals acknowledged were compensated for their contributions.

Bardy  GH, Lee  KL, Mark  DB,  et al; Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) Investigators.  Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(3):225-237.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gasparini  M, Proclemer  A, Klersy  C,  et al.  Effect of long-detection interval vs standard-detection interval for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators on antitachycardia pacing and shock delivery: the ADVANCE III randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;309(18):1903-1911.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Moss  AJ, Schuger  C, Beck  CA,  et al; MADIT-RIT Trial Investigators.  Reduction in inappropriate therapy and mortality through ICD programming. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(24):2275-2283.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Schwab  JO, Gasparini  M, Lunati  M,  et al.  Avoid delivering therapies for nonsustained fast ventricular tachyarrhythmia in patients with implantable cardioverter/defibrillator: the ADVANCE III Trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2009;20(6):663-666.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gasparini  M, Menozzi  C, Proclemer  A,  et al.  A simplified biventricular defibrillator with fixed long detection intervals reduces implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) interventions and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy implanted for primary prevention: the RELEVANT [Role of long dEtection window programming in patients with LEft VentriculAr dysfunction, Non-ischemic eTiology in primary prevention treated with a biventricular ICD] study. Eur Heart J. 2009;30(22):2758-2767.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.
Time to Hospitalizations
Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable.  Rates of Hospitalizations, Length of Stay (LOS), and Mean Cost per Patient-Year

References

Bardy  GH, Lee  KL, Mark  DB,  et al; Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) Investigators.  Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(3):225-237.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gasparini  M, Proclemer  A, Klersy  C,  et al.  Effect of long-detection interval vs standard-detection interval for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators on antitachycardia pacing and shock delivery: the ADVANCE III randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;309(18):1903-1911.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Moss  AJ, Schuger  C, Beck  CA,  et al; MADIT-RIT Trial Investigators.  Reduction in inappropriate therapy and mortality through ICD programming. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(24):2275-2283.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Schwab  JO, Gasparini  M, Lunati  M,  et al.  Avoid delivering therapies for nonsustained fast ventricular tachyarrhythmia in patients with implantable cardioverter/defibrillator: the ADVANCE III Trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2009;20(6):663-666.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gasparini  M, Menozzi  C, Proclemer  A,  et al.  A simplified biventricular defibrillator with fixed long detection intervals reduces implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) interventions and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy implanted for primary prevention: the RELEVANT [Role of long dEtection window programming in patients with LEft VentriculAr dysfunction, Non-ischemic eTiology in primary prevention treated with a biventricular ICD] study. Eur Heart J. 2009;30(22):2758-2767.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

959 Views
0 Citations

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
×