Contemporary use of devices in chronic heart failure in the Netherlands

A.G. Raafs*, G.C.M. Linssen, J.J. Brugts, A. Erol-Yilmaz, J. Plomp, J.P.P. Smits, M.J. Nagelsmit, R.M. Oortman, A.W. Hoes, H.P. Brunner-La Rocca

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

2 Citations (Web of Science)

Abstract

Aims Despite previous surveys regarding device implantation rates in heart failure (HF), insight into the real-world management with devices is scarce. Therefore, we investigated device implantation rates in HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in 34 Dutch centres.Methods and results A cross-sectional outpatient registry was conducted in 6666 patients with LVEF < 50% and with information about device implantation available [74 (66-81) years of age; 64% male]. Patients were classified into conventional pacemakers (PM, n = 562), implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD, n = 1165), and cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator function (CRT-D, n = 885) or pacemaker function only (CRT-P, n = 248), or no device (n = 3806). Centres were divided into ICD-implanting and CRT-implanting and referral centres. Overall, 17.5% had an ICD, 13.3% CRT-D, 3.7% CRT-P, and 8.4% PM. Of those with LVEF <= 30%, 42.5% had ICD or CRT-D therapy. A large variation in implantation rates existed between centres: 3-51% for ICD therapy, 0.3-44% for CRT-D therapy, 0-11% for CRT-P therapy, and 0-25% PM therapy. Implantation centres showed higher implantation rates of ICD, CRT-D, and CRT-P compared with referral centres [36% vs. 25% for defibrillators (ICD or CRT-D) and 17% vs. 9% for CRT devices (CRT-D or CRT-P), respectively, P < 0.001], independently of other factors. A large number of clinical factors were predictive for device usage. Among other, LVEF < 40% and male sex were independent positive predictors for ICD/CRT-D use [odds ratio (OR) = 3.33, P < 0.001; OR = 1.87, P = 0.019, respectively]. Older age was independently associated with less ICD/CRT-D (OR = 0.96 per year, P < 0.001) and more CRT-P/PM use (OR = 1.03 per year, P = 0.006).Conclusions In this large Dutch HF registry, less than half of the patients with reduced LVEF received an ICD or CRT, even if LVEF was <= 30%, and a large variation between centres existed. Patients from implantation centres had more often ICD or CRT. More uniformity regarding guideline-based use of device therapy in clinical practice is needed.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1771-1780
Number of pages10
JournalEsc heart failure
Volume7
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2020

Keywords

  • cardiac resynchronization therapy
  • electrical device therapy
  • follow-up
  • guidelines
  • heart failure
  • hf
  • implantable cardioverter defibrillator
  • implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
  • primary prevention
  • real-world heart failure management
  • reduced ejection fraction
  • sex-differences
  • survival
  • task-force
  • therapy
  • SURVIVAL
  • Electrical device therapy
  • Real-world heart failure management
  • GUIDELINES
  • FOLLOW-UP
  • Cardiac resynchronization therapy
  • REDUCED EJECTION FRACTION
  • THERAPY
  • Heart failure
  • Implantable cardioverter defibrillator
  • IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER-DEFIBRILLATOR
  • TASK-FORCE
  • SEX-DIFFERENCES
  • PRIMARY PREVENTION
  • HF

Cite this