Outcomes following cardiac resynchronisation therapy in older people.

INTRODUCTION: Older patients may be less likely to receive cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) for the management of heart failure. We aimed to describe the differences in clinical response, complications, and subsequent outcomes following CRT implantation compared to younger patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of unselected, consecutive patients implanted with CRT devices between March 2008 and July 2017. We recorded complications, symptomatic and echocardiographic response, hospitalisation for heart failure, and all-cause mortality comparing patients aged <70, 70-79 and ≥ 80 years. RESULTS: Five hundred and seventy-four patients (median age 76 years [interquartile range 68-81], 73.3% male) received CRT. At baseline, patients aged ≥80 years had worse symptoms, were more likely to have co-morbidities, and less likely to be receiving comprehensive medical therapy, although left ventricular function was similar. Older patients were less likely to receive CRT-defibrillators compared to CRT-pacemakers. Complications were infrequent and not more common in older patients. Age was not a predictor of symptomatic or echocardiographic response to CRT (67.2%, 71.2% and 62.6% responders in patients aged <70, 70-79 and ≥ 80 years, respectively; P = 0.43), and time to first heart failure hospitalisation was similar across age groups (P = 0.28). Ten-year survival was lower for older patients (49.9%, 23.9% and 6.8% in patients aged <70, 70-79 and ≥ 80 years, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of CRT on symptoms and left ventricular function were not different in older patients despite a greater burden of co-morbidities and less optimal medical therapy. These findings support the use of CRT in an ageing population.

Advanced care planning during the COVID-19 pandemic: ceiling of care decisions and their implications for observational data.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies investigating risk factors in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have not considered the confounding effects of advanced care planning, such that a valid picture of risk for elderly, frail and multi-morbid patients is unknown. We aimed to report ceiling of care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) decisions and their association with demographic and clinical characteristics as well as outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Retrospective, observational study conducted between 5th March and 7th May 2020 of all hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Ceiling of care and CPR decisions were documented using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) process. Unadjusted and multivariable regression analyses were used to determine factors associated with ceiling of care decisions and death during hospitalisation. RESULTS: A total of 485 patients were included, of whom 409 (84·3%) had a documented ceiling of care; level one for 208 (50·9%), level two for 75 (18·3%) and level three for 126 (30·8%). CPR decisions were documented for 451 (93·0%) of whom 336 (74·5%) were 'not for resuscitation'. Advanced age, frailty, White-European ethnicity, a diagnosis of any co-morbidity and receipt of cardiovascular medications were associated with ceiling of care decisions. In a multivariable model only advanced age (odds 0·89, 0·86-0·93 p < 0·001), frailty (odds 0·48, 0·38-0·60, p < 0·001) and the cumulative number of co-morbidities (odds 0·72, 0·52-1·0, p = 0·048) were independently associated. Death during hospitalisation was independently associated with age, frailty and requirement for level two or three care. CONCLUSION: Ceiling of care decisions were made for the majority of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, broadly in line with known predictors of poor outcomes in COVID-19, but with a focus on co-morbidities suggesting ICU admission might not be a reliable end-point for observational studies where advanced care planning is routine.