BACKGROUND: The reported ventricular assist device (VAD) experience in the pediatric congenital heart disease (CHD) population is limited. We sought to describe contemporary use and outcomes of VADs in children with CHD and compare these outcomes to those of non-CHD children. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the Pediatric Interagency Registry for Mechanical Circulatory Support (Pedimacs) between September 19, 2012 through June 30, 2017 were included. CHD was classified as biventricular vs single ventricle (Stages 1, 2, or 3). Outcomes were compared between groups and multivariable analysis was used to identify factors associated with mortality on the device. RESULTS: Among the 471 patients enrolled, 108 (24%) had CHD (45 biventricular and 63 single ventricle). CHD patients were younger (5.7 § 5.7 years vs 9.8 § 6.5 years; p < 0.0001) and smaller (0.8 § 0.5 m 2 vs 1.2 § 0.7 m 2 ; p < 0.0001) compared with non-CHD patients. CHD patients were more likely to receive a paracorporeal continuous-flow VAD (36.1% vs 12.9%; p < 0.0001) and less likely to receive an implantable continuous-flow VAD (27.8% vs 55.0%; p < 0.0001) compared with non-CHD patients. After 6 months on a VAD, CHD patients had higher mortality (36.4% vs 12.1%) and a lower transplantation rate (29.1% vs 59.9%) than non-CHD patients (p < 0.0001). In the multivariable analysis, CHD was the factor most strongly associated with mortality on VAD (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.9; p < 0.0001), whereas the factors implantable continuous-flow device and high-volume center were protective (HR = 0.3, p < 0.0001, and HR = 0.6, respectively; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: VAD use in children with CHD is associated with increased mortality and decreased transplant rates compared to children without CHD. For the subgroup of children with
BackgroundCost-utility models are frequently used to compare treatments intended to prevent or delay the onset of cardiovascular events. Most published utilities represent post-event health states without incorporating the disutility of the event or reporting the time between the event and utility assessment. Therefore, this study estimated health state utilities representing cardiovascular conditions while distinguishing between acute impact including the cardiovascular event and the chronic post-event impact.MethodsHealth states were drafted and refined based on literature review, clinician interviews, and a pilot study. Three cardiovascular conditions were described: stroke, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and heart failure. One-year acute health states represented the event and its immediate impact, and post-event health states represented chronic impact. UK general population respondents valued the health states in time trade-off tasks with time horizons of one year for acute states and ten years for chronic states.ResultsA total of 200 participants completed interviews (55% female; mean age = 46.6 y). Among acute health states, stroke had the lowest utility (0.33), followed by heart failure (0.60) and ACS (0.67). Utility scores for chronic health states followed the same pattern: stroke (0.52), heart failure (0.57), and ACS (0.82). For stroke and ACS, acute utilities were significantly lower than chronic post-event utilities (difference = 0.20 and 0.15, respectively; both p < 0.0001).ConclusionsResults add to previously published utilities for cardiovascular events by distinguishing between chronic post-event health states and acute health states that include the event and its immediate impact. Findings suggest that acute versus chronic impact should be considered when selecting scores for use in cost-utility models. Thus, the current utilities provide a unique option that may be used to represent the acute and chronic impact of cardiovascular conditions in economic models comparing treatments that may delay or prevent the onset of cardiovascular events.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0772-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Aim
When selecting treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is important to consider not only efficacy and safety, but also other treatment attributes that have an impact on patient preference. The objective of this study was to examine preference between injection devices used for two weekly GLP‐1 receptor agonists.
Materials and Methods
The PREFER study was an open‐label, multicentre, randomized, crossover study assessing patient preference for dulaglutide and semaglutide injection devices among injection‐naïve patients receiving oral medication for type 2 diabetes. After being trained to use each device, participants performed all steps of injection preparation and administered mock injections into an injection pad. Time‐to‐train (TTT) for each device was assessed in a subset.
Results
There were 310 evaluable participants (48.4% female; mean age, 60.0 years; 78 participants in the TTT subgroup). More participants preferred the dulaglutide device than the semaglutide device (84.2% vs. 12.3%; P < 0.0001). More participants perceived the dulaglutide device to have greater ease of use (86.8% vs. 6.8%; P < 0.0001). After preparing and using the devices, more participants were willing to use the dulaglutide device (93.5%) than the semaglutide device (45.8%). Training participants to use the dulaglutide device required less time than the semaglutide device (3.38 vs. 8.14 minutes; P < 0.0001).
Conclusions
Participants with type 2 diabetes preferred the dulaglutide injection device to the semaglutide injection device. If patients prefer a device, they may be more willing to use the medication, which could result in better health outcomes. Furthermore, a shorter training time for injection devices may be helpful in busy clinical practice settings.
High DID-EQ scores indicate positive perceptions of both the liraglutide and dulaglutide injection devices. The dulaglutide device was associated with slightly higher scores for ease of use and convenience than the liraglutide device.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.