Publications

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a device-based treatment available to select individuals with systolic heart failure (HF), a large proportion of whom are aged 65 and older. As the field of CRT advances, together with shifting demographics and expanded indications for implantation, there is a need for practitioners caring for older adults to understand what is and is not known about the use of CRT specifically in this population. Clinical trials demonstrating benefits for severe and mild HF have uncertain generalizability to older adults. Other studies demonstrate that device-related complications may be more common with CRT than with simpler devices and more common in older adults. CRT clinical trials also may not adequately capture outcomes and concerns specific to older adults, including quality of life and end-of-life care experiences. Informed decision-making by clinicians, policy-makers, and patients will require greater understanding of the use and outcomes of CRT in older persons.

Daniel Kramer and colleagues compare strategies for postmarket surveillance of medical devices and discuss ways to improve these systems. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the effect of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy on atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) undergoing pulmonary vein isolation (PVI).

BACKGROUND: OSA is a predictor of AF recurrence following PVI. However, the impact of CPAP therapy on PVI outcome in patients with OSA is poorly known.

METHODS: Among 426 patients who underwent PVI between 2007 and 2010, 62 patients had a polysomnography-confirmed diagnosis of OSA. While 32 patients were "CPAP users" the remaining 30 patients were "CPAP nonusers." The recurrence of any atrial tachyarrhythmia, use of antiarrhythmic drugs, and need for repeat ablations were compared between the groups during a follow-up period of 12 months. Additionally, the outcome of patients with OSA was compared to a group of patients from the same PVI cohort without OSA.

RESULTS: CPAP therapy resulted in higher AF-free survival rate (71.9% vs. 36.7%; p = 0.01) and AF-free survival off antiarrhythmic drugs or repeat ablation following PVI (65.6% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.02). AF recurrence rate of CPAP-treated patients was similar to a group of patients without OSA (HR: 0.7, p = 0.46). AF recurrence following PVI in CPAP nonuser patients was significantly higher (HR: 2.4, p < 0.02) and similar to that of OSA patients managed medically without ablation (HR: 2.1, p = 0.68).

CONCLUSIONS: CPAP is an important therapy in OSA patients undergoing PVI that improves arrhythmia free survival. PVI offers limited value to OSA patients not treated with CPAP.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the clinical features, procedural risks, or survival of patients receiving replacement versus new implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs).

METHODS AND RESULTS: Entries in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) ICD Registry from 2005 through 2010 were eligible for inclusion (n=463,978). Baseline demographic data, clinical information, and procedural variables were compared between patients receiving new (n=359,993; 77.6%) and replacement (n=103,985; 22.4%) ICDs and entered into a propensity match model to determine adjusted survival rates. Patients receiving replacement ICDs were older (70.7 versus 67.5 years of age) and more likely to have atrial fibrillation (41.8% versus 31.4%; P<0.001) and ventricular tachycardia (60.5% versus 33.9%; P<0.001) compared with patients receiving new ICDs. Median battery life was only 4.6 years (25%-75% interquartile range, 3.7-5.8) for all replaced devices, 5.8 (25%-75% interquartile range, 4.2-7.5) for single-chamber, 5.1 (25%-75% interquartile range, 4.1-6.1) for dual-chamber, and 3.9 (25%-75% interquartile range, 3.2-4.6) years for biventricular devices. Patients receiving replacement ICDs had lower rates of index admission complications (0.9% versus 3.2%; P<0.001) but greater risk for death compared receiving patients receiving new ICDs in unadjusted analysis (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.20; P<0.0001) and after propensity-score matching (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.30; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving replacement ICDs are older and at greater risk for death compared with those receiving initial ICD implants. The battery life of initial ICDs is shorter than previously reported.

BACKGROUND: Postmarket medical device surveillance in the United States depends largely on voluntary reporting of adverse events. Consequently, early safety signals may be missed, exposing patients to potentially hazardous products. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of using an automated safety surveillance tool to detect early signals that a marketed implantable cardiac device was underperforming.

METHODS AND RESULTS: For this purpose, we performed simulated prospective monthly full-cohort and propensity-matched comparative survival analyses on our 3-center database of Sprint Fidelis and Quattro Secure implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads, using a commercially available automated surveillance tool that was preset to trigger an alert if the log rank probability value was <0.05. During the study, 84 of 1035 Fidelis (8.1%) and 23 of 1675 Quattro (1.4%) leads failed. The simulated full-cohort analysis triggered a sustained alert for Fidelis leads beginning 13 months after the first implant and 2 years before Fidelis leads were removed from the market. Of the 1035 patients who had Fidelis leads, up to 969 (93.6%) were successfully matched to Quattro patients. In the propensity-matched analysis, the alert triggered 22 months after the first Fidelis implant and more than 1 year before the lead was recalled.

CONCLUSIONS: An active automated safety surveillance system could have identified this implantable cardiovascular device problem substantially sooner than was achieved through existing postmarket surveillance methods. Such a tool, when applied to clinical registries and remote monitoring databases, may limit the exposure of large populations to underperforming and potentially hazardous cardiovascular devices.

Cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs), including pacemakers (PMs) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), are the most effective treatment for life-threatening arrhythmias. Patients or their surrogates may request device deactivation to avoid prolongation of the dying process or in other settings, such as after device-related complications or with changes in health care goals. Despite published guidelines outlining theoretical and practical aspects of this common clinical scenario, significant uncertainty remains for both patients and health care providers regarding the ethical and legal status of CIED deactivation. This review outlines the ethical and legal principles supporting CIED deactivation, centered upon patient autonomy and authority over their own medical treatment. The empirical literature describing stakeholder views and experiences surrounding CIED deactivation is described, along with implications of these studies for future research surrounding the care of patients with CIEDs.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers and regulators in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) are weighing reforms to their medical device approval and post-market surveillance systems. Data may be available that identify strengths and weakness of the approaches to medical device regulation in these settings.

METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a systematic review to find empirical studies evaluating medical device regulation in the US or EU. We searched Medline using two nested categories that included medical devices and glossary terms attributable to the US Food and Drug Administration and the EU, following PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. We supplemented this search with a review of the US Government Accountability Office online database for reports on US Food and Drug Administration device regulation, consultations with local experts in the field, manual reference mining of selected articles, and Google searches using the same key terms used in the Medline search. We found studies of premarket evaluation and timing (n = 9), studies of device recalls (n = 8), and surveys of device manufacturers (n = 3). These studies provide evidence of quality problems in pre-market submissions in the US, provide conflicting views of device safety based largely on recall data, and relay perceptions of some industry leaders from self-surveys.

CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have quantitatively assessed medical device regulation in either the US or EU. Existing studies of US and EU device approval and post-market evaluation performance suggest that policy reforms are necessary for both systems, including improving classification of devices in the US and promoting transparency and post-market oversight in the EU. Assessment of regulatory performance in both settings is limited by lack of data on post-approval safety outcomes. Changes to these device approval and post-marketing systems must be accompanied by ongoing research to ensure that there is better assessment of what works in either setting.