METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the prospective ASIAN-HF (Asian Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure) registry, 5276 patients with symptomatic HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) from 11 Asian regions and across 3 income regions (high: Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan; middle: China, Malaysia, and Thailand; and low: India, Indonesia, and Philippines) were studied. ICD utilization, clinical characteristics, as well as device perception and knowledge, were assessed at baseline among ICD-eligible patients (EF ≤35% and New York Heart Association Class II-III). Patients were followed for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality. Among 3240 ICD-eligible patients (mean age 58.9±12.9 years, 79.1% men), 389 (12%) were ICD recipients. Utilization varied across Asia (from 1.5% in Indonesia to 52.5% in Japan) with a trend toward greater uptake in regions with government reimbursement for ICDs and lower out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure. ICD (versus non-ICD) recipients were more likely to be older (63±11 versus 58±13 year; P<0.001), have tertiary (versus ≤primary) education (34.9% versus 18.1%; P<0.001) and be residing in a high (versus low) income region (64.5% versus 36.5%; P<0.001). Among 2000 ICD nonrecipients surveyed, 55% were either unaware of the benefits of, or needed more information on, device therapy. ICD implantation reduced risks of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.97) and sudden cardiac deaths (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.79) over a median follow-up of 417 days.

CONCLUSIONS: ICDs reduce mortality risk, yet utilization in Asia is low; with disparity across geographic regions and socioeconomic status. Better patient education and targeted healthcare reforms in extending ICD reimbursement may improve access.

METHODS: We pooled individual-level data from 6 contemporary US-based cohorts from the Cardiovascular Lifetime Risk Pooling Project. Total LE8 score (0-100 points), LE8 score without sleep (0-100 points), and prior LS7 scores (0-14 points) were calculated separately. We used multivariable-adjusted Cox models to evaluate the association of LE8 with CVD, CVD subtypes, and all-cause mortality among younger, middle, and older adult participants. Net reclassification improvement analysis was used to measure the improvement in CVD risk classification with the addition of LS7 and LE8 recategorization based on score quartile rankings.

RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 32 896 US adults (7836 [23.8%] Black; 14 941 [45.4%] men) followed for 642 000 person-years, of whom 9391 developed CVD events. Each 10-point higher overall LE8 score was associated with lower risk by 22% to 40% for CVD, 24% to 43% for congenital heart disease, 17% to 34% for stroke, 23% to 38% for heart failure, and 17% to 21% for all causes of mortality events across age strata. LE8 score provided more granular differentiation of the related CVD risk than LS7. Overall, 19.5% and 15.5% of the study participants were recategorized upward and downward based on LE8 versus LS7 categories, respectively, and the recategorization was significantly associated with CVD risk in addition to LS7 score. The addition of recategorization between LE8 and LS7 categories improved CVD risk reclassification across age groups (clinical net reclassification improvement, 0.06-0.12; P<0.01).