Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in the elderly: rationale and specific age-related considerations

Despite the increasingly high rate of implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) in elderly patients, data supporting their clinical and cost-effectiveness in this age stratum are ambiguous and contradictory. We comprehensively reviewed the state-of-the-art data regarding the applicability, safety, clinical- and cost-effectiveness of the ICD in elderly patients, and analysed which patients in this age stratum are more likely to get a survival benefit from this therapy. Although peri-procedural risk may be slightly higher in the elderly, this procedure is still relatively safe in this age group. In terms of correcting potentially life-threatening arrhythmias, the effectiveness of ICD therapy is comparable in older and younger individuals. However, the assumption of persistent ICD benefit in the elderly population is questionable, as any advantage of the device on arrhythmic death may be largely attenuated by a higher total non-arrhythmic mortality. While septuagenarians and octogenarians have higher annual all-cause mortality rates, ICD therapy may remain effective in highly selected patients at high risk of arrhythmic death and with minimum comorbidities despite advanced age. ICD intervention among the elderly, as a group, may not be cost-effective, but the procedure may reach cost-effectiveness in those expected to live >5-7 years after implantation. Biological age rather than chronological age per se should be the decisive factor in making a decision on ICD selection for survival benefit.

Meta-analysis of the influence of chronic kidney disease on the risk of thromboembolism among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently coexist. However, the extent to which CKD increases the risk of thromboembolism in patients with nonvalvular AF and the benefits of anticoagulation in this group remain unclear. We addressed the role of CKD in the prediction of thromboembolic events and the impact of anticoagulation using a meta-analysis method. Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane (from inception to January 2014). Three independent reviewers selected studies. Descriptive and quantitative information was extracted from each selected study and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed. After screening 962 search results, 19 studies were considered eligible. Among patients with AF, the presence of CKD resulted in an increased risk of thromboembolism (hazard ratio [HR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20 to 1.76, p = 0.0001), particularly in case of end-stage CKD (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.14, p <0.00001). Warfarin decreased the incidence of thromboembolic events in patients with non-end-stage CKD (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.86, p <0.00001). Recent data on novel oral anticoagulants suggested a higher efficacy of these agents compared with warfarin (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96, p = 0.02) and aspirin (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.55, p <0.0001) in treating non-end-stage CKD. In conclusion, the presence of CKD in patients with AF is associated with an almost 50% increased thromboembolic risk, which can be effectively decreased with appropriate antithrombotic therapy. Further prospective studies are needed to better evaluate the interest of anticoagulation in patients with severe CKD.

Improving risk stratification in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with combined assessment of GRACE and CRUSADE risk scores

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment is fundamental in the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), enabling estimation of prognosis. AIMS: To evaluate whether the combined use of GRACE and CRUSADE risk stratification schemes in patients with myocardial infarction outperforms each of the scores individually in terms of mortality and haemorrhagic risk prediction. METHODS: Observational retrospective single-centre cohort study including 566 consecutive patients admitted for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The CRUSADE model increased GRACE discriminatory performance in predicting all-cause mortality, ascertained by Cox regression, demonstrating CRUSADE independent and additive predictive value, which was sustained throughout follow-up. The cohort was divided into four different subgroups: G1 (GRACE<141; CRUSADE<41); G2 (GRACE<141; CRUSADE≥41); G3 (GRACE≥141; CRUSADE<41); G4 (GRACE≥141; CRUSADE≥41). RESULTS: Outcomes and variables estimating clinical severity, such as admission Killip-Kimbal class and left ventricular systolic dysfunction, deteriorated progressively throughout the subgroups (G1 to G4). Survival analysis differentiated three risk strata (G1, lowest risk; G2 and G3, intermediate risk; G4, highest risk). The GRACE+CRUSADE model revealed higher prognostic performance (area under the curve [AUC] 0.76) than GRACE alone (AUC 0.70) for mortality prediction, further confirmed by the integrated discrimination improvement index. Moreover, GRACE+CRUSADE combined risk assessment seemed to be valuable in delineating bleeding risk in this setting, identifying G4 as a very high-risk subgroup (hazard ratio 3.5; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Combined risk stratification with GRACE and CRUSADE scores can improve the individual discriminatory power of GRACE and CRUSADE models in the prediction of all-cause mortality and bleeding. This combined assessment is a practical approach that is potentially advantageous in treatment decision-making.