2017
DOI: 10.1161/circulationaha.116.022359
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reassessment of Cardiac Function and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Use Among Medicare Patients With Low Ejection Fraction After Myocardial Infarction

Abstract: In US practice, EF reassessments are commonly performed among patients with MI with an initially reduced EF. Although 1-year EF reassessment is associated with increased likelihood of ICD implantation, 1-year ICD implantation rates remain very low even among patients with EF reassessment, regardless of revascularization status.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The result of the real world registries, however, show that only a fraction of eligible patients is offered a device therapy. The report by Pokorney et al showed that only 2/3 of the post-MI population with reduced EF at baseline have echo reassessment within 12 months, and even in persistently reduced EF, the device treatment is offered to only 11% of eligible patients [ 21 ]. Our results confirm that obligatory EF assessment triples the number of patients referred to ICD/CRT implantation (MC-AMI: 4.3% vs. control 1.4%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The result of the real world registries, however, show that only a fraction of eligible patients is offered a device therapy. The report by Pokorney et al showed that only 2/3 of the post-MI population with reduced EF at baseline have echo reassessment within 12 months, and even in persistently reduced EF, the device treatment is offered to only 11% of eligible patients [ 21 ]. Our results confirm that obligatory EF assessment triples the number of patients referred to ICD/CRT implantation (MC-AMI: 4.3% vs. control 1.4%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our findings underscore that careful post-AMI reassessments are required to monitor the LVEF trajectory and identify potential patients who need additional medical and/or device therapies, even in patients with preserved LVEF at the time of AMI. However, despite guideline-directed recommendations (23,24), previous studies have shown that the frequency of post-AMI LVEF reassessment was relatively low in patients with LV systolic dysfunction at the time of AMI (25,26). A recent cohort study from Canada also demonstrated that approximately 1 in 3 patients with mildly reduced LVEF following AMI did not undergo LVEF reassessment within 6 months after AMI (27).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These Canadian results in fact compare favorably with those reported by the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry–Get With The Guidelines in a study of US Medicare-insured post-MI patients with in-hospital LVEF less than or equal to 35%, of whom 66.8% had LVEF reassessment within 1 year. 12 …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…US-based cohorts have also documented lower than expected rates of LVEF reassessment in similar patient populations. 11,12 This is an important gap in care because, despite guideline-directed medical therapy and revascularization, up to 50% of patients with impaired LVEF after MI do not experience normalization of their ventricular function. 13,14 Previous studies on this topic have been retrospective and lacked patient-reported data on the potential reasons for lack of follow-up testing.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%