Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30562069›Full record

Observational studyCirculation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes2018

Facility-Level Variation and Clinical Outcomes in Use of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With and Without an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator.

Daniel B Kramer, Sharon-Lise T Normand, Rita Volya, Laura A Hatfield

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Mandates for Shared Decisions: Means to which Ends?The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2021
    Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel B KramerRichard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Division of Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA (D.B.K.).
Sharon-Lise T NormandHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA (D.B.K., S.-L.T.N., R.V., L.A.H.).
Rita VolyaHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA (D.B.K., S.-L.T.N., R.V., L.A.H.).
Laura A HatfieldHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA (D.B.K., S.-L.T.N., R.V., L.A.H.).
Harvard University · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · US

Funding

THE MDEPINET MEDICAL COUNTER MEASURES STUDYU01FD004493 · FDA · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI NORMAND, SHARON-LISE TERESA, RESNIC, FREDERIC S · 2012 to 2012
$1.6M
FDA HHS U01 FD004493
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about real-world facility-level preferences for cardiac resynchronization therapy devices with (CRT-D) and without (CRT-P) defibrillator backup. We quantify this variation at the facility level and exploit this variation to compare outcomes of patients receiving these 2 devices. METHODS AND

resultsClaims data from fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries were used to identify new CRT-P and CRT-D implants, 2006 to 2012. We modeled factors associated with receipt of each device, and compared mortality, hospitalizations, and reoperations for patients receiving each using both logistic regression and instrumental variable analysis to account for confounding. Among 71 459 device recipients (CRT-P, 11 925; CRT-D, 59 534; 31% women), CRT-P recipients were older, more likely to be women, and had more comorbidities. Variation in device selection among facilities was substantial: After adjustment for patient characteristics, the odds of receiving a CRT-P (versus CRT-D) device were 7.6× higher for a patient treated at a facility in the highest CRT-P use quartile versus a facility in the lowest CRT-P use quartile. Logistic modeling suggested a survival advantage for CRT-D devices but with falsification end points indicating residual confounding. By contrast, in the instrumental variable analysis using facility variability as the proposed instrument, clinical characteristics and falsification end points were well balanced, and 1-year mortality in patients who received CRT-P versus CRT-D implants did not differ, while CRT-P patients had a lower probability of hospitalizations and reoperations in the year following implant.

conclusionsCRT-P versus CRT-D selection varies substantially among facilities, adjusted for clinical factors. After instrumental variable adjustment for clinical covariates and facility preference, survival was no different between the devices. Therefore, CRT-P may be preferred for Medicare beneficiaries considering new CRT implantation.

Indexed as

Administrative Claims, HealthcareAgedAged, 80 and overCardiac Resynchronization TherapyCardiac Resynchronization Therapy DevicesClinical Decision-MakingDatabases, FactualDefibrillators, ImplantableElectric CountershockFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHeart FailureHumansMaleMedicareOutcome and Process Assessment, Health Carecardiac resynchronization therapycomorbiditydefibrillatorsheart failureMedicare

Identifiers

PMID30562069
PMCPMC6688862
OpenAlexW2904610705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.