These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Failure to reassess ejection fraction after acute myocardial infarction in potential implantable cardioverter/defibrillator candidates: insights from the Translational Research Investigating Underlying disparities in acute Myocardial infarction Patients' Health Status (TRIUMPH) registry.
    Author: Miller AL, Gosch K, Daugherty SL, Rathore S, Peterson PN, Peterson ED, Ho PM, Chan PS, Lanfear DE, Spertus JA, Wang TY.
    Journal: Am Heart J; 2013 Oct; 166(4):737-43. PubMed ID: 24093855.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Current practice guidelines advocate delaying assessment of primary prevention implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) candidacy at least 40 days after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) because early ICD implantation after AMI has not demonstrated survival benefit. The rate at which interval reassessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) occurs in potential primary prevention ICD candidates is unknown. METHODS: We examined patients with AMI in the TRIUMPH registry with inhospital LVEF <40% discharged alive after their index presentation, excluding patients with a prior ICD and those who declined ICD during the index admission or were discharged to hospice. We conducted multivariable Poisson modeling to identify independent factors associated with LVEF reassessment by 6 months after AMI. RESULTS: Of the 533 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, only 187 (35.1%) reported LVEF reassessment in the first 6 months after AMI and only 13 patients (2.4%) underwent ICD implantation by 1 year. In multivariable analysis, early cardiology follow-up after AMI was associated with a higher likelihood of LVEF reassessment (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.28), whereas uninsured status and cardiologist-driving inpatient medical decision making were associated with a lower likelihood of LVEF reassessment (odds ratios 0.84 [95% CI 0.74-0.96] and 0.78 [95% CI 0.68-0.91], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary practice, almost 2 of 3 potential primary prevention ICD candidates did not report follow-up LVEF evaluation, with a very low rate of ICD implantation at 1 year. These results suggest an important gap in quality, highlighting the need for better transitions of care.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]