Pulmonary artery pressure monitoring in chronic heart failure: effects across clinically relevant subgroups in the MONITOR-HF trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In patients with chronic heart failure (HF), the MONITOR-HF trial demonstrated the efficacy of pulmonary artery (PA)-guided HF therapy over standard of care in improving quality of life and reducing HF hospitalizations and mean PA pressure. This study aimed to evaluate the consistency of these benefits in relation to clinically relevant subgroups. METHODS: The effect of PA-guided HF therapy was evaluated in the MONITOR-HF trial among predefined subgroups based on age, sex, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, left ventricular ejection fraction, HF aetiology, cardiac resynchronisation therapy, and implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Outcome measures were based upon significance in the main trial and included quality of life, clinical, and PA pressure endpoints, and were assessed for each subgroup. Differential effects in relation to the subgroups were assessed with interaction terms. Both unadjusted and multiple testing adjusted interaction terms were presented. RESULTS: The effects of PA monitoring on quality of life, clinical events, and PA pressure were consistent in the predefined subgroups, without any clinically relevant heterogeneity within or across all endpoint categories (all adjusted interaction P-values were nonsignificant). In the unadjusted analysis of the primary endpoint quality-of-life change, weak trends towards a less pronounced effect in older patients (Pinteraction = 0.03; adjusted Pinteraction = 0.33) and diabetics (Pinteraction = 0.01; adjusted Pinteraction = 0.06) were observed. However, these interaction effects did not persist after adjusting for multiple testing. CONCLUSIONS: This subgroup analysis confirmed the consistent benefits of PA-guided HF therapy observed in the MONITOR-HF trial across clinically relevant subgroups, highlighting its efficacy in improving quality of life, clinical, and PA pressure endpoints in chronic HF patients.

A randomised comparison of the effect of haemodynamic monitoring with CardioMEMS in addition to standard care on quality of life and hospitalisations in patients with chronic heart failure : Design and rationale of the MONITOR HF multicentre randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Assessing haemodynamic congestion based on filling pressures instead of clinical congestion can be a way to further improve quality of life (QoL) and clinical outcome by intervening before symptoms or weight gain occur in heart failure (HF) patients. The clinical efficacy of remote monitoring of pulmonary artery (PA) pressures (CardioMEMS; Abbott Inc., Atlanta, GA, USA) has been demonstrated in the USA. Currently, the PA sensor is not reimbursed in the European Union as its benefit when applied in addition to standard HF care is unknown in Western European countries, including the Netherlands. AIMS: To demonstrate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of haemodynamic PA monitoring in addition to contemporary standard HF care in a high-quality Western European health care system. METHODS: The current study is a prospective, multi-centre, randomised clinical trial in 340 patients with chronic HF (New York Heart Association functional class III) randomised to HF care including remote monitoring with the CardioMEMS PA sensor or standard HF care alone. Eligible patients have at least one hospitalisation for HF in 12 months before enrolment and will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio. Minimum follow-up will be 1 year. The primary endpoint is the change in QoL as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Secondary endpoints are the number of HF hospital admissions and changes in health status assessed by EQ-5D-5L questionnaire including health care utilisation and formal cost-effectiveness analysis. CONCLUSION: The MONITOR HF trial will evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of haemodynamic monitoring by CardioMEMS in addition to standard HF care in patients with chronic HF. Clinical Trial Registration number NTR7672.

Privacy of patient data in quality-of-care registries in cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery: the impact of the new general data protection regulation EU-law.

Quality-of-care registries have been shown to improve quality of healthcare and should be facilitated and encouraged. The data of these registries are also very valuable for medical data research. While fully acknowledging the importance of re-using already available data for research purposes, there are concerns about how the applicable privacy legislation is dealt with. These concerns are also articulated in the new European law on privacy, the 'General Data Protection Regulation' (GDPR) which has come into force on 25 May 2018. The aim of this review is to examine what the implications of the new European data protection rules are for quality-of-care registries in Europe while providing examples of three quality-of-care registries in the field of cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery in Europe. A general overview of the European and national legal framework (relevant data protection and privacy legislation) applying to quality-of-care registries is provided. One of the main rules is that non-anonymous patient data may, in principle, not be used for research without the patient's informed consent. When patient data are solely and strictly used for quality control and improvement, this rule does not apply. None of the described registries (NHR, SWEDEHEART, and NICOR) currently ask specific informed consent of patients before using their data in the registry, but they do carry out medical data research. Application of the GDPR implies that personal data may only be used for medical data research after informing patients and obtaining their explicit consent.

Nationwide claims data validated for quality assessments in acute myocardial infarction in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: Since health insurance is compulsory in the Netherlands, the centrally registered medical claims data might pose a unique opportunity to evaluate quality of (cardiac) care on a national level without additional collection of data. However, validation of these claims data has not yet been assessed. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: National claims data ('national registry') were compared with data collected by patient records reviews in four representative hospitals ('validation registry'). In both registries, we extracted the national diagnosis codes for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction of 2012 and 2013. Additionally, data on medication use at one year after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was extracted from the Dutch pharmacy information systems and also validated by local patient records reviews. The data were compared at three stages: 1) validation of diagnosis and treatment coding; 2) validation of the hospital where follow-up has taken place; 3) validation of follow-up medical treatment after 365 days. RESULTS: In total, 3,980 patients ('national registry') and 4,014 patients ('validation registry') were compared at baseline. After one-year follow-up, 2,776 and 2,701 patients, respectively, were evaluated. Baseline characteristics, diagnosis and individual medication were comparable between the two registries. Of all 52,672 AMI patients in the Netherlands in 2012 and 2013, 81% used aspirin, 76% used P2Y12 inhibitors, 85% used statins, 82% used beta-blockers and 74% angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II antagonists. Optimal medical treatment was achieved in 49% of the patients with AMI. CONCLUSION: Nationwide routinely collected claims data in patients with an acute myocardial infarction are highly accurate. This offers an opportunity for use in quality assessments of cardiac care.

The year of transparency: measuring quality of cardiac care.

The assessment of quality of care is becoming increasingly important in healthcare, both globally and in the Netherlands. The Dutch Minister of Health declared 2015 to be the year of transparency, thereby aiming to improve quality of care by transparent reporting of outcome data. With the increasing importance of transparency, knowledge on quality measurement will be essential for a cardiologist in daily clinical care. To that end, this paper provides a comprehensive overview of the Dutch healthcare structure, quality indicators and the current and future assessment of quality of cardiac care in the Netherlands.

Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients: the need for defibrillator back-up after an event-free first battery service-life.

INTRODUCTION: In primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients, the relatively low incidence of ventricular arrhythmias (VA) combined with the limited battery service-life potentially results in a large group of patients who have had no benefit of the ICD during first service-life. Data on the occurrence of VA after device replacement remain scarce. The purpose of this study was to give clinicians better insight in the dilemma whether or not to replace an ICD after an event-free first battery service-life. METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients treated with an ICD for primary prevention who had a replacement because of battery depletion and who did not receive appropriate therapy before device replacement were included in this analysis. Of 154 primary prevention ICD patients needing replacement because of battery depletion, 114 (74%) patients (mean age 61 ± 11 years, 80% male) had not received appropriate ICD therapy for VA. Follow-up was 71 ± 24 months after the initial implantation and 25 ± 21 months after device replacement. Following replacement, 3-year cumulative incidence of appropriate therapy in response to ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation was 14% (95% CI 5-22%). CONCLUSION: The majority of primary prevention ICD patients do not experience VA during first battery service-life. However, a substantial part of these patients does experience appropriate ICD therapy after replacement.

Improvements in 25 Years of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy.

In 1980, Dr. Michel Mirowski and his team inserted the first implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in a patient. Initially, ICD therapy was not widely accepted, and many physicians actually considered this therapy unethical. Large secondary and primary prevention trials, demonstrating a beneficial effect of ICD therapy in selected patients not only on arrhythmic death but also on all-cause mortality, stimulated a rapid growth in the number of implants and increased patient's and physician's acceptance. Improvements in size and weight, arrhythmia discrimination capabilities, battery technology, shock waveform and output, monitoring capabilities and defibrillator electrode technology eventually resulted in the current large number of yearly implants. Today, almost 40 years after the conception of the ICD and 25 years after the first human implant, ICD therapy is the treatment of choice for patients at risk for life-threatening arrhythmias either as secondary or primary prevention. Furthermore, with the more recent addition of resynchronisation therapy to standard ICD therapy, it became possible to treat selected patients with advanced symptoms of heart failure and to lower the risk of sudden death.

Rationale and design of the CAREFUL study : The yield of CARdiogenetic scrEening in First degree relatives of sudden cardiac and UnexpLained death victims <45 years.

Background. Sudden cardiac death (SCD) in the young (1-45 years) is a strong risk factor for the presence of inherited cardiac diseases in surviving first-degree relatives. Postmortem investigation of the victim and cardiogenetic evaluation of the first-degree relatives is indicated to detect inherited cardiac diseases and treat relatives at an early stage to prevent SCD. In the Netherlands, postmortem investigation is often not performed and relatives of SCD and sudden unexplained death (SUD) victims are rarely evaluated for inherited cardiac diseases.Methods. A prospective population-based follow-up study carried out in two intervention regions and two control regions. In the intervention regions a comprehensive intervention (stimulate autopsy and storage of victims DNA and the referral of first-degree relatives for cardiogenetic evaluation) is applied in a 'top down' and 'bottom up' mode. In each region, young sudden death victims are registered and for all cases performance of autopsy and evaluation of relatives in a cardiogenetics outpatient clinic will be determined.Expected results. The study will provide information on the incidence of sudden death in the young and the proportion of diagnosed inherited cardiac diseases. Moreover, the additional value of the introduction of two different preventive strategies directed at early detection of inherited cardiac diseases in first-degree relatives to usual care will be evaluated. Conclusion. The CAREFUL study will help to set a new standard of care in the evaluation of young sudden death victims and their relatives to identify the presence of inherited cardiac diseases, in order to prevent sudden death. (Neth Heart J 2010;18:286-90.).

Clinical implementation of guidelines for cardioverter defibrillator implantation: lost in translation?

PURPOSE: Guidelines for implantation of cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) are increasingly including indications for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in high-risk groups, where ICDs were traditionally implanted for secondary prevention. We performed a single-centre audit to evaluate adherence to the recent Dutch guidelines. METHODS: All 1886 patients visiting a large regional Dutch teaching hospital (attending 1.8 to 2.0% of the Dutch population) in November 2005 were screened using the recently updated Dutch guidelines. Patients fulfilling these criteria were categorised as having an ICD indication for primary or secondary prevention. RESULTS: 135 patients had an indication for ICD, 19 of whom had one or received one. Of the remaining 116 patients, 14 were 'new' to the department of cardiology. The 102 'known' patients had 466 doctor-patient contacts in the previous year, which averages 4.57 cardiology contacts per patient per year. Patients were more likely to receive an ICD for the secondary prevention of SCD (10/11, 91%) than for primary prevention (9/124, 7%). CONCLUSION: In a large regional teaching hospital in the Netherlands, only a small proportion of patients eligible for ICD implantation actually receive one. Cardiologists tend to implant ICDs for secondary prevention of SCD. The low ICD implantation rate for primary prevention of SCD may relate to logistics (e.g. permission to implant ICDs, the presence of an electrophysiology lab) or the perceived low cost-benefit ratio. Our results indicate that once the substantial backlog (13,500 ICDs) has been addressed, the annual implantation of new ICDs should rise from the current 125 to at least 510 per million inhabitants per year in the Netherlands. (Neth Heart J 2007;15:129-32.).