"Are CRT upgrade procedures more complex and associated with more complications than de novo CRT implantations?" A single centre experience

Comparison of de novo implantation vs. upgrade cardiac resynchronisation therapy: a multicentre experience

BACKGROUND

The clinical safety and consequences of upgrade procedures compared with de novo cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) implantation in heart failure remain unclear. The present study aimed to assess clinical and procedural consequences of patients undergoing CRT upgrade as compared to de novo CRT implantations.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, two subgroups were considered as the study population as (1) de novo group that CRT was considered on optimised medical treatment with heart failure of NYHA functional class from II to IV, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≤35%, and QRS width of >130 ms and (2) upgrade group including the patients with previously implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) with the indications for upgrading to CRT. The two groups were compared regarding the changes in clinical outcome and echocardiography parameters.

RESULTS

The procedure was successful in 95.9% of patients who underwent CRT upgrade and 100% of those who underwent de novo CRT implantation. It showed a significant improvement in LVEF, severity of mitral regurgitation and NYHA functional classification, without any difference between the two study groups. Overall procedural related complications were reported in 10.8% and 3.8% (p = .093) and cardiac death in 5.4% and 2.5% (p = .360), respectively, with no overall difference in postoperative outcome between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Upgrading to CRT is a safe and effective procedure regarding improvement of functional class, left ventricular function status and post-procedural outcome.

Upgrading right ventricular pacemakers to biventricular pacing or conduction system pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Guidelines recommend patients undergoing a first pacemaker implant who have even mild left ventricular (LV) impairment should receive biventricular or conduction system pacing (CSP). There is no corresponding recommendation for patients who already have a pacemaker. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing device upgrades. The primary outcome was the echocardiographic change in LV ejection fraction (LVEF). Six RCTs (randomizing 161 patients) and 47 observational studies (2644 patients) assessing the efficacy of upgrade to biventricular pacing were eligible for analysis. Eight observational studies recruiting 217 patients of CSP upgrade were also eligible. Fourteen additional studies contributed data on complications (25 412 patients). Randomized controlled trials of biventricular pacing upgrade showed LVEF improvement of +8.4% from 35.5% and observational studies: +8.4% from 25.7%. Observational studies of left bundle branch area pacing upgrade showed +11.1% improvement from 39.0% and observational studies of His bundle pacing upgrade showed +12.7% improvement from 36.0%. New York Heart Association class decreased by -0.4, -0.8, -1.0, and -1.2, respectively. Randomized controlled trials of biventricular upgrade found improvement in Minnesota Heart Failure Score (-6.9 points) and peak oxygen uptake (+1.1 mL/kg/min). This was also seen in observational studies of biventricular upgrades (-19.67 points and +2.63 mL/kg/min, respectively). In studies of the biventricular upgrade, complication rates averaged 2% for pneumothorax, 1.4% for tamponade, and 3.7% for infection over 24 months of mean follow-up. Lead-related complications occurred in 3.3% of biventricular upgrades and 1.8% of CSP upgrades. Randomized controlled trials show significant physiological and symptomatic benefits of upgrading pacemakers to biventricular pacing. Observational studies show similar effects between biventricular pacing upgrade and CSP upgrade.

Complications of cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation: De novo implants versus upgrades

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a well-established treatment of patients with advanced heart failure and electrical dyssynchrony. Implantation of those devices is in some cases associated with intervention on a formerly implanted system. The aim of this analysis was to compare the rate and type of complications of de novo implants and upgrades to CRT-D.

METHODS

Retrospective data were collected from medical records, including 326 patients treated with CRT-D between 2015 and 2020. The following data were analyzed: procedure data including complications, demographics, co-morbidities, pharmacotherapy, and laboratory tests. The primary endpoint of the study was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 326 procedure were included, of which 53% (n = 172) were de novo implants and 47% (n = 154) were upgrades. The groups did not differ in the incidence of complications: in the de novo group: 25.5% (n = 44); in the upgrade group: 30.5% (n = 47), p = 0.78. The incidence of complications was also similar in respect of the following: early (p = 0.98) and late (p = 0.45), infectious (p = 0.38) and non-infectious (p = 0.82), surgical (p = 0.38) and device or lead related (p = 0.6). The most common complication in the upgrade group was pocket hematoma (n = 9, 5.8%) and in the de novo group pneumothorax (n = 8, 4.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Upgrade procedures of are not associated with a higher percentage of complications than de novo implantations of CRT-D. Previously implanted cardiac implantable electronic device should not limit the implantation of CRT-Ds.

The therapeutic effects of upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy in pacing-induced cardiomyopathy or chronic right ventricular pacing patients: a meta-analysis

Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) or heart failure accompanied with chronic right ventricular pacing (CRVP-HF) has no established treatments. We aimed to carry out a meta-analysis of published studies about the therapeutic effects of the upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients of PICM/CRVP-HF. The PUBMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE, OVID databases, and Cochrane Library were systemically searched for relevant publications. Data about the improvements of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), NYHA functional class (NYHA-FC), and the CRT response rate was extracted and synthesized. Mean difference (MD), odds ratio, and standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated as the effect size by both fixed and random effect models. We included sixteen studies (four about PICM and twelve about CRVP-HF). The total sample size of PICM/CRVP-HF patients was 924. Upgrade to CRT improved the LVEF by 10.87% (95%CI, 8.90 to 12.84%) and reduce the NYHA-FC by around one class (MD, -1.25; 95%CI, -1.43 to -1.06) in PICM/CRVP-HF patients overall. Upgrade to CRT seemed to improve LVEF no less than de-novo CRT (SMD 0.24; 95%CI 0.05 to 0.43; P < 0.05). This meta-analysis suggested that upgrade CRT could improve the cardiac function in PICM/CRVP-HF patients. This strategy may be considered in these patients but require more evidence about the efficacy and procedure-related complications from prospective studies or randomized controlled trials.

Mortality and Heart Failure After Upgrade to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Background

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is effective in treating advanced heart failure (HF), but data describing benefits and long-term outcomes for upgrades from a preexisting device are limited. This study sought to compare long-term outcomes in de novo CRT implants with those eligible for CRT with a prior device.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study using data from a provincial registry (2002-2015). Patients were included if they had mild-moderate HF, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35%, and QRS duration ≥ 130 ms. Patients were classified as de novo CRT or upgraded to CRT from a prior device. Outcomes were mortality and composite mortality and HF hospitalization.

Results

There were 342 patients included in the study. In a multivariate model, patients in the upgraded cohort (n = 233) had a higher 5-year mortality rate (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.59-5.15; P = 0.0005) compared with the de novo cohort (n = 109) and higher composite mortality and HF hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-4.37; P = 0.0003).

Conclusions

Implantation of de novo CRTs was associated with lower mortality and HF hospitalization compared with upgraded CRTs from preexisting devices. It is unknown whether these differences are due to the timing of CRT implementation or other clinical factors. Further work in this area may be helpful to determine how to improve outcomes for these patients.

Visualisation of coronary venous anatomy by computed tomography angiography prior to cardiac resynchronisation therapy implantation

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to illustrate the additive value of computed tomography angiography (CTA) for visualisation of the coronary venous anatomy prior to cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) implantation.

METHODS

Eighteen patients planned for CRT implantation were prospectively included. A specific CTA protocol designed for visualisation of the coronary veins was carried out on a third-generation dual-source CT platform. Coronary veins were semi-automatically segmented to construct a 3D model. CTA-derived coronary venous anatomy was compared with intra-procedural fluoroscopic angiography (FA) in right and left anterior oblique views.

RESULTS

Coronary venous CTA was successfully performed in all 18 patients. CRT implantation and FA were performed in 15 patients. A total of 62 veins were visualised; the number of veins per patient was 3.8 (range: 2-5). Eighty-five per cent (53/62) of the veins were visualised on both CTA and FA, while 10% (6/62) were visualised on CTA only, and 5% (3/62) on FA only. Twenty-two veins were present on the lateral or inferolateral wall; of these, 95% (21/22) were visualised by CTA. A left-sided implantation was performed in 13 patients, while a right-sided implantation was performed in the remaining 2 patients because of a persistent left-sided superior vena cava with no left innominate vein on CTA.

CONCLUSION

Imaging of the coronary veins by CTA using a designated protocol is technically feasible and facilitates the CRT implantation approach, potentially improving the outcome.

Complications associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrades versus de novo implantations

INTRODUCTION

A significant number of patients undergo upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). These patients tend to differ from individuals undergoing de novo CRT implantations both in terms of their baseline demographics and the etiology underlying their heart failure. Areas covered: There are several factors that need to be considered when upgrading patients to CRT, such as, venous patency. Potentially, these conditions can cause issues which may result in procedures being more difficult than de novo implantations. This article discusses these issues and compares the rates of procedural-related complications for CRT upgrades and de novo implantations. It discusses the proportion of patients that are likely to respond to CRT with each intervention. Expert commentary: Understanding the relative risks of CRT upgrades versus de novo implantations is important to help operators select the correct initial device and counsel patients accordingly. Growing experience with image-guided implantations and endocardial pacing may prove to be particularly relevant to patients undergoing CRT upgrades.

De novo implantation vs. upgrade cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients with conventional pacemakers or implanted defibrillators are often considered for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Our aim was to summarize the available evidences regarding the clinical benefits of upgrade procedures. A systematic literature search was performed from studies published between 2006 and 2017 in order to compare the outcome of CRT upgrade vs. de novo implantations. Outcome data on all-cause mortality, heart failure events, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class, QRS narrowing and echocardiographic parameters were analysed. A total of 16 reports were analysed comprising 489,568 CRT recipients, of whom 468,205 patients underwent de novo and 21,363 upgrade procedures. All-cause mortality was similar after CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.88-1.60, p = 0.27). The risk of heart failure was also similar in both groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70-1.32, p = 0.81). There was no significant difference in clinical response after CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations in terms of improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (ΔEF de novo - 6.85% vs. upgrade - 9.35%; p = 0.235), NYHA class (ΔNYHA de novo - 0.74 vs. upgrade - 0.70; p = 0.737) and QRS narrowing (ΔQRS de novo - 9.6 ms vs. upgrade - 29.5 ms; p = 0.485). Our systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available studies reports that CRT upgrade is associated with similar risk for all-cause mortality compared to de novo resynchronization therapy. Benefits on reverse remodelling and functional capacity improved similarly in both groups suggesting that CRT upgrade may be safely and effectively offered in routine practice.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospero Database-CRD42016043747.

Effects of Upgrade Versus De Novo Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy on Clinical Response and Long-Term Survival

Background—

Benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on morbidity and mortality in selected patients are well known. Although the number of upgrade procedures from single- or dual-chamber devices to CRT is increasing, there are only sparse data on the outcomes of upgrade procedures compared with de novo CRT. This study aimed to evaluate clinical response and survival in patients receiving de novo versus upgrade CRT defibrillator therapy.

Methods and Results—

Prospectively collected outcome data were compared in patients undergoing de novo or upgrade CRT defibrillator implantation at 3 implant centers in Germany and Hungary. Clinical response was defined as an improvement by at least one New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. CRT implantation was performed in 552 consecutive patients of whom 375 underwent a de novo and 177 an upgrade procedure. Upgrade patients were more often implanted for secondary prevention, suffered more often from atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia, and had more often a non-LBBB (left bundle branch block) wide QRS complex, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction. Upgrade procedures were associated with a lower response rate compared to the de novo group (57% versus 69%, P univariate=0.008, P multivariate=0.021). During the follow-up of 37±28 months, survival was worse after upgrade compared with de novo CRT defibrillator implantations (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.22–2.24; P =0.001) even after careful adjustment for important baseline variables (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.20–2.34; P =0.002) and after propensity-score matching (propensity-adjusted hazard ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.08–2.95; P =0.023).

Conclusions—

Both clinical response and long-term survival were less favorable in patients undergoing CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations.