Predictors of long-term mortality with cardiac resynchronization therapy in mild heart failure patients with left bundle branch block

Risk scores in cardiac resynchronization therapy-A review of the literature

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) for selected heart failure (HF) patients improves symptoms and reduces morbidity and mortality; however, the prognosis of HF is still poor. There is an emerging need for tools that might help in optimal patient selection and provide prognostic information for patients and their families. Several risk scores have been created in recent years; although, no literature review is available that would list the possible scores for the clinicians. We identified forty-eight risk scores in CRT and provided the calculation methods and formulas in a ready-to-use format. The reviewed score systems can predict the prognosis of CRT patients; some of them have even provided an online calculation tool. Significant heterogeneity is present between the various risk scores in terms of the variables incorporated and some variables are not yet used in daily clinical practice. The lack of cross-validation of the risk scores limits their routine use and objective selection. As the number of prognostic markers of CRT is overwhelming, further studies might be required to analyze and cross-validate the data.

Why is the clinical response to cardiac resynchronization better in LBBB patients?

Aims

The improved clinical response in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) over LBBB‐free patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT‐D) is commonly attributed to an LBBB abnormality. We aimed to find an alternative explanation.

Methods and results

We analysed an immediate effect of selecting the LBBB group of patients in a cohort of 63 non‐ischaemic cardiomyopathy (non‐ICM) and 83 ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) patients treated with CRT‐D; 75% of non‐ICM and 51% of ICM patients had an LBBB abnormality on the electrocardiogram, with a significant difference (P = 0.0032 by χ²). As a result of this difference, the proportion of non‐ICM patients increased from 43% in the primary cohort to 53% in LBBB selection and decreased to 28% in non‐LBBB group. By nonparametric survival analysis, the hazard ratio in non‐ICM patients in the LBBB selection decreased from 0.48 (P = 0.0488) to 0.36 (P = 0.0251) and increased in the non‐LBBB group to 0.75 (P = 0.6496). Any comparison of LBBB and non‐LBBB groups must compare sets with a significantly altered proportion of patients of different aetiologies. Most publications on LBBB patients are erroneous because they compare LBBB with non‐LBBB groups, not taking into account that the groups have been substantially changed by the selection process.

Conclusions

The declared outcome of the LBBB groups reflects inevitably the survival outcome of their non‐ICM patients and not the intended outcome of patients with LBBB. CRT‐D in patients with different aetiologies of cardiomyopathy calls for separate evaluation.

Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy is unrelated to medical therapy

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines recommend at least 3 months of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients with a new onset of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) prior to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). For patients who do not receive optimal GDMT, response to CRT is unknown.

METHODS

Patients with NICM and LBBB with QRS ≥ 120 ms were identified among all patients who underwent CRT. Patients who received GDMT for ≥ 3 months before CRT were compared to those who did not. Among 38 patients who met inclusion criteria, 24 received optimal GDMT prior to implantation (Group 1) and 14 did not (Group 2).

RESULTS

QRS narrowing occurred in Group 1 (160 ± 9 ms to 138 ± 20 ms, P = 0.001) and Group 2 (160 ± 17 ms to 139 ± 30 ms, P = 0.021). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement occurred in Group 1 (21.3 ± 5.9% to 34.4 ± 13.9%, P < 0.001) and Group 2 (18.8 ± 4.7% to 31.1 ± 13%, P = 0.010). QRS interval and LVEF changes were similar between groups (P = NS). There was a trend towards greater CRT response in women than in men, although differences did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

In patients with NICM and LBBB, CRT is associated with improvements in LV size and function independent of prior GDMT. The ability of resynchronization to improve LVEF without GDMT suggests that CRT without waiting 3 months for GDMT optimization may benefit some patients with NICM and LBBB.

Predictors of long-term mortality with cardiac resynchronization therapy in mild heart failure patients with left bundle branch block

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is highly beneficial in patients with heart failure (HF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB); however, up to 30% of patients in this selected group are nonresponders.

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesized that clinical and echocardiographic variables can be used to develop a simple mortality risk stratification score in CRT.

METHODS

Best-subsets proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to develop a simple clinical risk score for all-cause mortality in 756 patients with LBBB allocated to the CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) group enrolled in the multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial with cardiac resynchronization therapy. The score was used to assess the mortality risk within the CRT-D group and the associations with mortality reduction with CRT-D vs implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in each risk category.

RESULTS

Four clinical variables comprised the risk score: age ≥ 65, creatinine ≥ 1.4 mg/dL, history of coronary artery bypass graft, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 26%. Every 1 point increase in the score was associated with 2-fold increased mortality within the CRT-D arm (P < 0.001). CRT-D was associated with mortality reduction as compared with ICD only in patients with moderate risk: score 0 (HR = 0.80, P = 0.615), score 1 (HR = 0.54, P = 0.019), score 2 (HR = 0.54, P = 0.016), score 3-4 risk factors (HR = 1.08, P = 0.811); however, the device by score interaction was not significant (P = 0.306). The score was also significantly predictive of left ventricular reverse remodeling (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Four clinical variables can be used for improved mortality risk stratification in mild HF patients with LBBB implanted with CRT-D.