Advertisement
Mayo Clinic Proceedings Home

The Impact of Charlson Comorbidity Index on De Novo Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Procedural Outcomes in the United States

Published:December 01, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.06.029

      Abstract

      Objective

      To investigate the utility of Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) as a measure of comorbidity burden to predict procedural outcomes after de novo cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation.

      Methods

      All de novo CIED implantations in the United States National Inpatient Sample between 2015 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed, stratified by CCI score (0=no comorbidity burden, 1=mild, 2=moderate, ≥3=severe). Multivariable logistic regression models were performed to examine the association between unit CCI score (scale) and in-hospital outcomes (major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events [MACCE]: composite of all-cause mortality, acute ischemic stroke, thoracic and cardiac complications, and device-related complications; and MACCE individual components).

      Results

      Of 474,475 CIED procedures, the distribution of CCI score was as follows: CCI=0 (17.7%), CCI=1 (21.8%), CCI=2 (18.7%), and CCI=3+ (41.8%). Charlson comorbidity index score was associated with increased odds ratios of MACCE (1.10; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.11), all-cause mortality (1.23; 95% CI, 1.21 to 1.25), and acute stroke (1.45; 95% CI, 1.44 to 1.46). This finding was consistent across all CIED groups except the cardiac resynchronization therapy groups in which CCI was not associated with increased risk of mortality. A higher CCI score was not associated with increased odds of procedural (thoracic and cardiac) and device-related complications.

      Conclusion

      In a nationwide cohort of CIED procedures, higher comorbidity burden as measured by CCI score was associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality and acute ischemic stroke, but not procedure-related (thoracic and cardiac) or device-related complications. Objective assessment of comorbidity burden is important to risk-stratify patients undergoing CIED implantation for better prognostication of their in-hospital survival.

      Abbreviations and Acronyms:

      CCI (Charlson comorbidity index), CIED (cardiac implantable electronic device), CRT (cardiac resynchronization therapy), ICD (implantable cardioverter-defibrillator), MACCE (major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events), PPM (permanent pacemaker), OR (odds ratio)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Mayo Clinic Proceedings
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Zhan C.
        • Baine W.B.
        • Sedrakyan A.
        • Steiner C.
        Cardiac device implantation in the United States from 1997 through 2004: a population-based analysis.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2008; 23: 13-19
        • Uslan D.Z.
        • Tleyjeh I.M.
        • Baddour L.M.
        • et al.
        Temporal trends in permanent pacemaker implantation: a population-based study.
        Am Heart J. 2008; 155: 896-903
        • Mond H.G.
        • Proclemer A.
        The 11th world survey of cardiac pacing and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: calendar year 2009 — a World Society of Arrhythmia's project.
        Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2011; 34: 1013-1027
        • Baddour L.M.
        • Epstein A.E.
        • Erickson C.C.
        • et al.
        Update on cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections and their management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.
        Circulation. 2010; 121: 458-477
        • Joy P.S.
        • Kumar G.
        • Poole J.E.
        • London B.
        • Olshansky B.
        Cardiac implantable electronic device infections: who is at greatest risk?.
        Heart Rhythm. 2017; 14: 839-845
        • Bradshaw P.J.
        • Stobie P.
        • Knuiman M.W.
        • Briffa T.G.
        • Hobbs M.S.
        Trends in the incidence and prevalence of cardiac pacemaker insertions in an ageing population.
        Open Heart. 2014; 1: e000177
        • Moss A.J.
        • Hall W.J.
        • Cannom D.S.
        • et al.
        Improved survival with an implanted defibrillator in patients with coronary disease at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia. Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial Investigators.
        N Engl J Med. 1996; 335: 1933-1940
        • Bardy G.H.
        • Lee K.L.
        • Mark D.B.
        • et al.
        Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure.
        N Engl J Med. 2005; 352: 225-237
        • Moss A.J.
        • Zareba W.
        • Hall W.J.
        • et al.
        Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction.
        N Engl J Med. 2002; 346: 877-883
        • George S.
        • Kwok C.S.
        • Martin G.P.
        • et al.
        The influence of the Charlson comorbidity index on procedural characteristics, VARC-2 endpoints and 30-day mortality among patients who undergo transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
        Heart Lung Circ. 2019; 28: 1827-1834
        • Kwok C.S.
        • Martinez S.C.
        • Pancholy S.
        • et al.
        Effect of comorbidity on unplanned readmissions after percutaneous coronary intervention (from the Nationwide Readmission Database).
        Sci Rep. 2018; 8: 11156
        • Mamas M.A.
        • Fath-Ordoubadi F.
        • Danzi G.B.
        • et al.
        Prevalence and impact of co-morbidity burden as defined by the Charlson co-morbidity index on 30-day and 1- and 5-year outcomes after coronary stent implantation (from the Nobori-2 study).
        Am J Cardiol. 2015; 116: 364-371
        • Potts J.
        • Kwok C.S.
        • Ensor J.
        • et al.
        Temporal changes in co-morbidity burden in patients having percutaneous coronary intervention and impact on prognosis.
        Am J Cardiol. 2018; 122: 712-722
        • Rashid M.
        • Kwok C.S.
        • Gale C.P.
        • et al.
        Impact of co-morbid burden on mortality in patients with coronary heart disease, heart failure, and cerebrovascular accident: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2017; 3: 20-36
        • Zhang F.
        • Bharadwaj A.
        • Mohamed M.O.
        • Ensor J.
        • Peat G.
        • Mamas M.A.
        Impact of Charlson co-morbidity index score on management and outcomes after acute coronary syndrome.
        Am J Cardiol. 2020; 130: 15-23
        • Quan H.
        • Sundararajan V.
        • Halfon P.
        • et al.
        Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data.
        Med Care. 2005; 43: 1130-1139
        • de Groot V.
        • Beckerman H.
        • Lankhorst G.J.
        • Bouter L.M.
        How to measure comorbidity. a critical review of available methods.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2003; 56: 221-229
        • Bhavnani S.P.
        • Coleman C.I.
        • Guertin D.
        • Yarlagadda R.K.
        • Clyne C.A.
        • Kluger J.
        Evaluation of the Charlson comorbidity index to predict early mortality in implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients.
        Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2013; 18: 379-388
        • Boriani G.
        • Berti E.
        • Belotti L.M.B.
        • et al.
        Cardiac device therapy in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure: ‘real-world’ data on long-term outcomes (mortality, hospitalizations, days alive and out of hospital).
        Eur J Heart Fail. 2016; 18: 693-702
        • Green A.R.
        • Leff B.
        • Wang Y.
        • et al.
        Geriatric Conditions in Patients Undergoing Defibrillator Implantation for Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Prevalence and Impact on Mortality.
        Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016; 9: 23-30
        • Poupin P.
        • Bouleti C.
        • Degand B.
        • et al.
        Prognostic value of Charlson comorbidity index in the elderly with a cardioverter defibrillator implantation.
        Int J Cardiol. 2020; 314: 64-69
        • Ruwald A.C.
        • Vinther M.
        • Gislason G.H.
        • et al.
        The impact of co-morbidity burden on appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy and all-cause mortality: insight from Danish nationwide clinical registers.
        Eur J Heart Fail. 2017; 19: 377-386
        • Swindle J.P.
        • Rich M.W.
        • McCann P.
        • Burroughs T.E.
        • Hauptman P.J.
        Implantable cardiac device procedures in older patients: use and in-hospital outcomes.
        Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170: 631-637
      1. Overview of the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS). Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD2012
        • Hosmer D.W.
        • Lemesbow S.
        Goodness of fit tests for the multiple logistic regression model.
        Commun Stat Theory Methods. 1980; 9: 1043-1069
        • Al-Khatib Sana M.
        • Greiner Melissa A.
        • Peterson Eric D.
        • Hernandez Adrian F.
        • Schulman Kevin A.
        • Curtis Lesley H.
        Patient and implanting physician factors associated with mortality and complications after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation, 2002–2005.
        Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2008; 1: 240-249
        • Greenspon A.J.
        • Patel J.D.
        • Lau E.
        • et al.
        Trends in permanent pacemaker implantation in the United States from 1993 to 2009: increasing complexity of patients and procedures.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 60: 1540-1545
        • Kirkfeldt R.E.
        • Johansen J.B.
        • Nohr E.A.
        • Jorgensen O.D.
        • Nielsen J.C.
        Complications after cardiac implantable electronic device implantations: an analysis of a complete, nationwide cohort in Denmark.
        Eur Heart J. 2014; 35: 1186-1194
        • Mohamed M.O.
        • Barac A.
        • Contractor T.
        • et al.
        Prevalence and in-hospital outcomes of patients with malignancies undergoing de novo cardiac electronic device implantation in the USA.
        Europace. 2020; 22: 1083-1096
        • Mohamed M.O.
        • Greenspon A.
        • Van Spall H.
        • et al.
        Sex differences in rates and causes of 30-day readmissions after cardiac electronic device implantations: insights from the Nationwide Readmissions Database.
        Int J Cardiol. 2020; 302: 67-74
        • Mohamed M.O.
        • Sharma P.S.
        • Volgman A.S.
        • et al.
        Prevalence, outcomes and costs according to patient frailty status for 2.9 million cardiac electronic device implantations in the United States.
        Can J Cardiol. 2019; 35: 1465-1474
        • Weintraub W.S.
        • Garratt K.N.
        Public Reporting II: state of the art-current public reporting in cardiovascular medicine.
        Circulation. 2017; 135: 1772-1774
        • Wasfy J.H.
        • Borden W.B.
        • Secemsky E.A.
        • McCabe J.M.
        • Yeh R.W.
        Public reporting in cardiovascular medicine: accountability, unintended consequences, and promise for improvement.
        Circulation. 2015; 131: 1518-1527
        • Nowak B.
        • Misselwitz B.
        • Przibille O.
        • Mehta R.H.
        Is mortality a useful parameter for public reporting in pacemaker implantation? Results of an obligatory external quality control programme.
        Europace. 2017; 19: 568-572
        • Youngson E.
        • Welsh R.C.
        • Kaul P.
        • McAlister F.
        • Quan H.
        • Bakal J.
        Defining and validating comorbidities and procedures in ICD-10 health data in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients.
        Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95: e4554
        • McCormick N.
        • Lacaille D.
        • Bhole V.
        • Avina-Zubieta J.A.
        Validity of heart failure diagnoses in administrative databases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        PLoS One. 2014; 9: e104519
        • Ono Y.
        • Taneda Y.
        • Takeshima T.
        • Iwasaki K.
        • Yasui A.
        Validity of claims diagnosis codes for cardiovascular diseases in diabetes patients in Japanese administrative database.
        Clin Epidemiol. 2020; 12: 367-375
        • Parkash R.
        • Sapp J.
        • Gardner M.
        • Gray C.
        • Abdelwahab A.
        • Cox J.
        Use of administrative data to monitor cardiac implantable electronic device complications.
        Can J Cardiol. 2019; 35: 100-103
        • Udo E.O.
        • Zuithoff N.P.
        • van Hemel N.M.
        • et al.
        Incidence and predictors of short- and long-term complications in pacemaker therapy: the FOLLOWPACE study.
        Heart Rhythm. 2012; 9: 728-735