Hospice Use Following Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation in Older Patients: Results From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry
- PMID: 27016104
- PMCID: PMC4872640
- DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.020677
Hospice Use Following Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation in Older Patients: Results From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry
Abstract
Background: Older recipients of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are at increased risk for short-term mortality in comparison with younger patients. Although hospice use is common among decedents aged >65, its use among older ICD recipients is unknown.
Methods and results: Medicare patients aged >65 matched to data in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry - ICD Registry from January 1, 2006 to March 31, 2010 were eligible for analysis (N=194 969). The proportion of ICD recipients enrolled in hospice, cumulative incidence of hospice admission, and factors associated with time to hospice enrollment were evaluated. Five years after device implantation, 50.9% of patients were either deceased or in hospice. Among decedents, 36.8% received hospice services. The cumulative incidence of hospice enrollment, accounting for the competing risk of death, was 4.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6%-4.8%) within 1 year and 21.3% (95% CI, 20.7%-21.8%) at 5 years. Factors most strongly associated with shorter time to hospice enrollment were older age (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.73-1.81), class IV heart failure (versus class I; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.66-1.94); ejection fraction <20 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.48-1.67), and greater hospice use among decedents in the patients' health referral region.
Conclusions: More than one-third of older patients dying with ICDs receive hospice care. Five years after implantation, half of older ICD recipients are either dead or in hospice. Hospice providers should be prepared for ICD patients, whose clinical trajectories and broader palliative care needs require greater focus.
Keywords: defibrillators, implantable; health services research; heart failure; patient outcome assessment.
© 2016 The Authors.
Figures
References
-
- Epstein AE, Kay GN, Plumb VJ, McElderry HT, Doppalapudi H, Yamada T, Shafiroff J, Syed ZA, Shkurovich S ACT Investigators. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator prescription in the elderly. Heart Rhythm. 2009;6:1136–1143. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2009.04.010. - PubMed
-
- Hammill SC, Kremers MS, Stevenson LW, Heidenreich PA, Lang CM, Curtis JP, Wang Y, Berul CI, Kadish AH, Al-Khatib SM, Pina IL, Walsh MN, Mirro MJ, Lindsay BD, Reynolds MR, Pontzer K, Blum L, Masoudi F, Rumsfeld J, Brindis RG. Review of the registry’s fourth year, incorporating lead data and pediatric ICD procedures, and use as a national performance measure. Heart Rhythm. 2010;7:1340–1345. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2010.07.015. - PubMed
-
- Epstein AE, Dimarco JP, Ellenbogen KA, Estes NA, 3rd, Freedman RA, Gettes LS, Gillinov AM, Gregoratos G, Hammill SC, Hayes DL, Hlatky MA, Newby LK, Page RL, Schoenfeld MH, Silka MJ, Stevenson LW, Sweeney MO American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; American Association for Thoracic Surgery; Society of Thoracic Surgeons. ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities. Heart Rhythm. 2008;5:e1–62. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2008.04.014. - PubMed
-
- Barra S, Providência R, Paiva L, Heck P, Agarwal S. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in the elderly: rationale and specific age-related considerations. Europace. 2015;17:174–186. doi: 10.1093/europace/euu296. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources