Improvement in CRT: new strategies, better choices

The risk of ventricular arrhythmias in a Dutch CRT population: CRT-defibrillator versus CRT-pacemaker

Background

Patients eligible for cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) have an indication for primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy. However, response to CRT might influence processes involved in arrhythmogenesis and therefore change the necessity of ICD therapy in certain patients.

Method

In 202 CRT-defibrillator patients, the association between baseline variables, 6-month echocardiographic outcome (volume response: left ventricular end-systolic volume decrease < ≥15 % and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ >35 %) and the risk of first appropriate ICD therapy was analysed retrospectively.

Results

Fifty (25 %) patients received appropriate ICD therapy during a median follow-up of 37 (23–52) months. At baseline ischaemic cardiomyopathy (hazard ratio (HR) 2.0, p = 0.019) and a B-type natriuretic peptide level > 163 pmol/l (HR 3.8, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with the risk of appropriate ICD therapy. After 6 months, 105 (52 %) patients showed volume response and 51 (25 %) reached an LVEF > 35 %. Three (6 %) patients with an LVEF > 35 % received appropriate ICD therapy following echocardiography at ± 6 months compared with 43 patients (29 %) with an LVEF ≤ 35 % (p = 0.001). LVEF post-CRT was more strongly associated to the risk of ventricular arrhythmias than volume response (LVEF > 35 %, HR 0.23, p = 0.020).

Conclusion

Assessing the necessity of an ICD in patients eligible for CRT remains a challenge. Six months post-CRT an LVEF > 35 % identified patients at low risk of ventricular arrhythmias. LVEF might be used at the time of generator replacement to identify patients suitable for downgrading to a CRT-pacemaker.

Echo response and clinical outcome in CRT patients

Background

Change in left ventricular end-systolic volume (∆LVESV) is the most frequently used surrogate marker in measuring response to cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). We investigated whether ∆LVESV is the best measure to discriminate between a favourable and unfavourable outcome and whether this is equally applicable to non-ischaemic and ischaemic cardiomyopathy.

Methods

205 CRT patients (age 65 ± 12 years, 69 % men) were included. At baseline and 6 months echocardiographic studies, exercise testing and laboratory measurements were performed. CRT response was assessed by: ∆LVESV, ∆LV ejection fraction (LVEF), ∆ interventricular mechanical delay, ∆VO₂ peak, ∆VE/VCO₂, ∆BNP, ∆creatinine, ∆NYHA, and ∆QRS. These were correlated to the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between 6 and 24 months.

Results

MACE occurred in 19 % of the patients (non-ischaemic: 13 %, ischaemic: 24 %). ∆LVESV remained the only surrogate marker for CRT response for the total population and patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy, showing areas under the curve (AUC) of 0.69 and 0.850, respectively. For ischaemic cardiomyopathy, ∆BNP was the best surrogate marker showing an AUC of 0.66.

Conclusion

∆LVESV is an excellent surrogate marker measuring CRT response concerning long-term outcome for non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy. ∆LVESV is not suitable for ischaemic cardiomyopathy in which measuring CRT response remains difficult.