7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Association of Clinical and Economic Outcomes With Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What are the clinical and economic outcomes in patients who required permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement ?

          Findings

          In this population-based cohort study of 1263 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement, implantation of a new permanent pacemaker was associated with significantly greater all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, and all-cause emergency department visits. However, this did not translate to a statistically significant difference in cumulative postdischarge health care costs.

          Meaning

          The need for permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement is a complication associated with worse survival as well as increased risk of hospitalization.

          Abstract

          This cohort study uses registry data to examine associations between permanent pacemaker implantation during hospitalization for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and mortality, hospital readmission, emergency department visits, and health care costs.

          Abstract

          Importance

          The literature is inconsistent regarding the impact of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

          Objective

          To evaluate clinical and economic outcomes in patients who required permanent pacemaker implantation during the index hospitalization after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This retrospective, population-based cohort study using data from a multicenter registry included patients who underwent a transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedure from April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2015, in Ontario, Canada, with follow-up to March 31, 2017. Patients who had a previously implanted permanent pacemaker or who died during the index hospitalization were excluded. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score was used to adjust for baseline differences between the pacemaker and nonpacemaker groups.

          Exposures

          Patients received a permanent pacemaker during the index hospitalization after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          All-cause mortality, readmission, readmission for heart failure, emergency department visits, and cumulative 1-year health care costs.

          Results

          The study cohort consisted of 1263 patients (mean [SD] age, 82.3 [7.2] years; 595 [47.1%] female; 137 [10.8%] rural), of whom 186 (14.7%) required permanent pacemaker insertion during the index hospitalization after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Mean follow-up was 990 days. After propensity score weighting, over the entire follow-up period, pacemaker implantation was associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality (43.9% vs 31.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.40; 95% CI, 1.01-1.94; P = .04), all-cause readmission (80.9% vs 70.6%; HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.15-1.43; P < .001), and emergency department visits (95.5% vs 87.3%; HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.52; P = .004). Pacemaker implantation was also associated with significantly greater readmission for heart failure (33.9% vs 19.1%; HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.53-2.36; P < .001). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in adjusted cumulative health care costs 1 year after discharge.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          New permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with significantly greater morbidity and mortality at long-term follow-up. However, this did not translate to a difference in cumulative health care costs after hospital discharge.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study.

          The propensity score--the probability of exposure to a specific treatment conditional on observed variables--is increasingly being used in observational studies. Creating strata in which subjects are matched on the propensity score allows one to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects. There is an ongoing controversy in the literature as to which variables to include in the propensity score model. Some advocate including those variables that predict treatment assignment, while others suggest including all variables potentially related to the outcome, and still others advocate including only variables that are associated with both treatment and outcome. We provide a case study of the association between drug exposure and mortality to show that including a variable that is related to treatment, but not outcome, does not improve balance and reduces the number of matched pairs available for analysis. In order to investigate this issue more comprehensively, we conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations of the performance of propensity score models that contained variables related to treatment allocation, or variables that were confounders for the treatment-outcome pair, or variables related to outcome or all variables related to either outcome or treatment or neither. We compared the use of these different propensity scores models in matching and stratification in terms of the extent to which they balanced variables. We demonstrated that all propensity scores models balanced measured confounders between treated and untreated subjects in a propensity-score matched sample. However, including only the true confounders or the variables predictive of the outcome in the propensity score model resulted in a substantially larger number of matched pairs than did using the treatment-allocation model. Stratifying on the quintiles of any propensity score model resulted in residual imbalance between treated and untreated subjects in the upper and lower quintiles. Greater balance between treated and untreated subjects was obtained after matching on the propensity score than after stratifying on the quintiles of the propensity score. When a confounding variable was omitted from any of the propensity score models, then matching or stratifying on the propensity score resulted in residual imbalance in prognostically important variables between treated and untreated subjects. We considered four propensity score models for estimating treatment effects: the model that included only true confounders; the model that included all variables associated with the outcome; the model that included all measured variables; and the model that included all variables associated with treatment selection. Reduction in bias when estimating a null treatment effect was equivalent for all four propensity score models when propensity score matching was used. Reduction in bias was marginally greater for the first two propensity score models than for the last two propensity score models when stratification on the quintiles of the propensity score model was employed. Furthermore, omitting a confounding variable from the propensity score model resulted in biased estimation of the treatment effect. Finally, the mean squared error for estimating a null treatment effect was lower when either of the first two propensity scores was used compared to when either of the last two propensity score models was used. Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Adverse effect of ventricular pacing on heart failure and atrial fibrillation among patients with normal baseline QRS duration in a clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node dysfunction.

            Dual-chamber (DDDR) pacing preserves AV synchrony and may reduce heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with ventricular (VVIR) pacing in sinus node dysfunction (SND). However, DDDR pacing often results in prolonged QRS durations (QRSd) as the result of right ventricular stimulation, and ventricular desynchronization may result. The effect of pacing-induced ventricular desynchronization in patients with normal baseline QRSd is unknown. Baseline QRSd was obtained from 12-lead ECGs before pacemaker implantation in MOST, a 2010-patient, 6-year, randomized trial of DDDR versus VVIR pacing in SND. Cumulative percent ventricular paced (Cum%VP) was determined from stored pacemaker data. Baseline QRSd 40%) and VVIR (HR 2.56 [95% CI, 1.48 to 4.43] for Cum%VP >80%). The risk of AF increased linearly with Cum%VP from 0% to 85% in both groups (DDDR, HR 1.36 [95% CI, 1.09, 1.69]; VVIR, HR 1.21 [95% CI 1.02, 1.43], for each 25% increase in Cum%VP). Model results were unaffected by adjustment for known baseline predictors of HF hospitalization and AF. Ventricular desynchronization imposed by ventricular pacing even when AV synchrony is preserved increases the risk of HF hospitalization and AF in SND with normal baseline QRSd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Dual-chamber pacing or ventricular backup pacing in patients with an implantable defibrillator: the Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) Trial.

              Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy with backup ventricular pacing increases survival in patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Most currently implanted ICD devices provide dual-chamber pacing therapy. The most common comorbid cause for mortality in this population is congestive heart failure. To determine the efficacy of dual-chamber pacing compared with backup ventricular pacing in patients with standard indications for ICD implantation but without indications for antibradycardia pacing. The Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) Trial, a single-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. A total of 506 patients with indications for ICD therapy were enrolled between October 2000 and September 2002 at 37 US centers. All patients had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 40% or less, no indication for antibradycardia pacemaker therapy, and no persistent atrial arrhythmias. All patients had an ICD with dual-chamber, rate-responsive pacing capability implanted. Patients were randomly assigned to have the ICDs programmed to ventricular backup pacing at 40/min (VVI-40; n = 256) or dual-chamber rate-responsive pacing at 70/min (DDDR-70; n = 250). Maximal tolerated medical therapy for left ventricular dysfunction, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers, was prescribed to all patients. Composite end point of time to death or first hospitalization for congestive heart failure. One-year survival free of the composite end point was 83.9% for patients treated with VVI-40 compared with 73.3% for patients treated with DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.44). The components of the composite end point, mortality of 6.5% for VVI-40 vs 10.1% for DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.84-3.09) and hospitalization for congestive heart failure of 13.3% for VVI-40 vs 22.6% for DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.97-2.46), also trended in favor of VVI-40 programming. For patients with standard indications for ICD therapy, no indication for cardiac pacing, and an LVEF of 40% or less, dual-chamber pacing offers no clinical advantage over ventricular backup pacing and may be detrimental by increasing the combined end point of death or hospitalization for heart failure.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                25 May 2018
                May 2018
                25 May 2018
                : 1
                : 1
                : e180088
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute for Clinical Evaluation Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ]Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [3 ]Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [4 ]Quebec Heart and Lung Institute, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: February 2, 2018.
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2018 Aljabbary T et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Harindra Wijeysundera, MD, PhD, Department of Cardiology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave, Ste A209D, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada ( harindra.wijeysundera@ 123456sunnybrook.ca ).
                Author Contributions: Ms Qiu and Dr Wijeysundera had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Aljabbary, Singh, Wijeysundera.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Aljabbary, Qiu, Wijeysundera.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Masih, Fang, Elbaz-Greener, Austin, Rodés-Cabau, Ko, Singh, Wijeysundera.
                Statistical analysis: Qiu, Fang.
                Obtained funding: Wijeysundera.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Aljabbary, Masih, Elbaz-Greener.
                Supervision: Singh, Wijeysundera.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Aljabbary reported grants from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada during the conduct of the study. Dr Rodés-Cabau reported grants from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic outside the submitted work. Dr Wijeysundera reported grants from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: Dr Wijeysundera is supported by a Distinguished Clinician Scientist Award from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. This work was supported by a grant-in-aid from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. Dr Austin is supported by a Career Investigator Award from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: No endorsement by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences or the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is intended or should be inferred. Parts of this material are based on data and/or information compiled and provided by the Canadian Institute for Health Information. However, the analyses, conclusions, opinions, and statements expressed in the material are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the institute.
                Additional Contributions: Participating hospitals provided clinical registry data through CorHealth Ontario, which serves as an advisory body to and is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. CorHealth is dedicated to improving quality, efficiency, access, and equity in the delivery of the continuum of adult cardiac services in Ontario, Canada.
                Article
                zoi180014
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0088
                6324315
                30646053
                c28a0fbe-007c-4f0a-92f9-8864df401df6
                Copyright 2018 Aljabbary T et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 12 January 2018
                : 29 January 2018
                : 2 February 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
                Funded by: Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
                Funded by: Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Cardiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article