Prediction of appropriate defibrillator therapy in heart failure patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy

Effect of Digitalis on ICD or CRT-D Recipients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Digitalis has been widely utilized for heart failure therapy and several studies have demonstrated an association of digitalis and adverse outcome events in patients receiving implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-Ds). Hence, we conducted this meta-analysis to assess the effect of digitalis on ICD or CRT-D recipients.

METHODS

We systematically retrieved relevant studies using the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase database. A random effect model was used to pool the effect estimates (hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs)) when the studies were of high heterogeneity, otherwise a fixed effect model was used.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles containing 44,761 ICD or CRT-D recipients were included. Digitalis was associated with an increased rate of appropriate shocks (HR = 1.65, 95% CI: 1.46-1.86, p < 0.001) and a shortened time to first appropriate shock (HR = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.17-2.65, p = 0.007) in ICD or CRT-D recipients. Furthermore, the all-cause mortality increased in ICD recipients with digitalis therapy (HR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.34-2.16, p < 0.01), but the all-cause mortality was unchanged in CRT-D recipients (HR = 1.55, 95% CI: 0.92-2.60, p = 0.10) or patients who received ICD or CRT-D therapy (HR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.80-1.48, p = 0.20). The sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.

CONCLUSION

ICD recipients with digitalis therapy may tend to have higher mortality rates, but digitalis may not be associated with the mortality rate of CRT-D recipients. Further studies are required to confirm the effects of digitalis on ICD or CRT-D recipients.

Digitalis therapy in patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias

Objective. The study sought to assess the prognostic value of treatment with digitalis on long-term prognosis in patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias and atrial fibrillation (AF) and/or heart failure (HF). Background. Data regarding the outcome of digitalis therapy following ventricular tachyarrhythmias is limited. Methods. A large retrospective registry was used including consecutive patients with episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or fibrillation (VF) from 2002 to 2015. Patients treated with digitalis were compared to patients without. The primary prognostic endpoint was all-cause mortality at 3 years, secondary endpoints comprised a composite arrhythmic endpoint (i.e. recurrences of ventricular tachyarrhythmias, appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapies, sudden cardiac death) and cardiac rehospitalization. Kaplan Mayer survival curves, multivariable cox regression, and time trend analyses were applied for statistics. Results. Eight hundred and thirty-one patients were included (20% treated with digitalis and 80% without). At 3 years, digitalis treatment was not associated with all-cause mortality following ventricular tachyarrhythmias (24 vs. 21%, log-rank p = .736; HR = 1.063; 95% CI 0.746-1.515; p = .736). However, digitalis therapy was associated with an increased risk of the composite arrhythmic endpoint (38 vs. 23%; log-rank p = .001; HR = 1.719; 95% CI 1.279-2.311; p = .001) and cardiac rehospitalization (31 vs. 18%; log-rank p = .001; HR = 1.829; 95% CI 1.318-2.538; p = .001), which was still evident within multivariable Cox regression analyses. Finally, digitoxin may be associated with a worse prognosis than digoxin. Conclusion. Digitalis therapy was not associated with mortality in patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias, but with increased risk of the composite arrhythmic endpoint and cardiac rehospitalization at 3 years.

Digoxin in patients with advanced heart failure and sinus rhythm submitted to cardiac resynchronization therapy- is there any benefit?

ABSTRACT

Digoxin use in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and sinus rhythm remains controversial. We aimed to assess the prognostic impact of digoxin in patients in sinus rhythm submitted to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).Retrospective study including 297 consecutive patients in sinus rhythm, with advanced HFrEF submitted to CRT. Patients were divided into two groups - with digoxin (DG) and without digoxin (NDG). During a mean follow-up of 4.9 ± 3.4 years we evaluated the impact of digoxin on the composite endpoint defined as cardiovascular hospitalization, progression to heart transplantation and all-cause mortality.Previous to CRT, 104 patients (35%) were chronically under digoxin and 193 patients (65%) without digoxin treatment. The 2 groups did not differ significantly regarding HF functional class, HF aetiology, QRS and baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The proportion of responders to CRT was similar in both groups (54% in DG vs 56% in NDG, p=0.78). During the long term follow up period, the primary endpoint occurred in a higher proportion in DG patients (67 vs 48%, p=0.002). After adjustment for potential confounders, digoxin use remained as an independent predictor of the composite endpoint of CV hospitalization, heart transplantation and all-cause mortality (HR = 1.58, CI 95 [1.01 - 2.46], p = 0.045).In conclusion, in patients in sinus rhythm with HFrEF submitted to CRT, digoxin use was associated to CV hospitalization, progression to heart transplant and all-cause mortality.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without defibrillation: a long-standing debate

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was shown to improve cardiac function, reduce heart failure hospitalizations, improve quality of life and prolong survival in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and intraventricular conduction disturbances, mainly left bundle branch block, on optimal medical therapy with ACE-inhibitors, β-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists up-titrated to maximum tolerated evidence-based doses. CRT can be achieved by means of pacemaker systems (CRT-P) or devices with defibrillation capabilities (CRT-D). CRT-Ds offer an undoubted advantage in the prevention of arrhythmic death, but such an advantage may be of lesser degree in non-ischemic heart failure aetiologies. Moreover, the higher CRT-D hardware complexity compared to CRT-P may predispose to device/lead malfunctions and the higher current drainage may cause a shorter battery duration with consequent premature replacements and the well-known incremental complications. In a period of financial constraints, also device costs should be carefully evaluated, with recent reports suggesting that CRT-Ps may be favoured over CRT-Ds in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and no prior history of cardiac arrhythmias from a cost-effectiveness point of view. The choice between a CRT-P or a CRT-D device should be patient-tailored whenever straightforward defibrillator indications are not present. The Goldenberg score may facilitate this decision-making process in ambiguous settings. Age, comorbidities, kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, advanced functional class, inappropriate therapy risk, implantable device infections and malfunctions are factors potentially reducing the expected benefit from defibrillating capabilities. Future prospective, randomized controlled trials are warranted to directly compare the efficacy and safety of CRT-Ps and CRT-Ds.

Time trends in sudden cardiac death risk in heart failure patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review

Aims

While data from randomized trials suggest a declining incidence of sudden cardiac death (SCD) among heart failure patients, the extent to which such a trend is present among patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has not been evaluated. We therefore assessed changes in SCD incidence, and associated factors, in CRT recipients over the last 20 years.

Methods and results

Literature search from inception to 30 April 2018 for observational and randomized studies involving CRT patients, with or without defibrillator, providing specific cause-of-death data. Sudden cardiac death was the primary endpoint. For each study, rate of SCD per 1000 patient-years of follow-up was calculated. Trend line graphs were subsequently constructed to assess change in SCD rates over time, which were further analysed by device type, patient characteristics, and medical therapy. Fifty-three studies, comprising 22 351 patients with 60 879 patient-years of follow-up and a total of 585 SCD, were included. There was a gradual decrease in SCD rates since the early 2000s in both randomized and observational studies, with rates falling more than four-fold. The rate of decline in SCD was steeper than that of all-cause mortality, and accordingly, the proportion of deaths which were due to SCD declined over the years. The magnitude of absolute decline in SCD was more prominent among CRT-pacemaker (CRT-P) patients compared to those receiving CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D), with the difference in SCD rates between CRT-P and CRT-D decreasing considerably over time. There was a progressive increase in age, use of beta-blockers, and left ventricular ejection fraction, and conversely, a decrease in QRS duration and antiarrhythmic drug use.

Conclusion

Sudden cardiac death rates have progressively declined in the CRT heart failure population over time, with the difference between CRT-D vs. CRT-P recipients narrowing considerably.

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance-GUIDEd management of mild to moderate left ventricular systolic dysfunction (CMR GUIDE): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The majority of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with heart failure occurs in those with mild-moderate left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction (LVEF 36-50%) who under current guidelines are ineligible for primary prevention implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Recent data suggest that cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) evidence of replacement fibrosis forms a substrate for malignant arrhythmia and therefore potentially identifies a subgroup at increased risk of SCD. Our hypothesis is that among patients with mild-moderate LV systolic dysfunction, a CMR-guided management strategy for ICD insertion based on the presence of scar or fibrosis is superior to a current strategy of standard care.

METHODS/DESIGN

CMR GUIDE is a prospective, multicenter randomized control trial enrolling patients with mild-moderate LV systolic dysfunction and CMR evidence of fibrosis on optimal heart failure therapy. Participants will be randomized to receive either a primary prevention ICD or an implantable loop recorder (ILR). The primary endpoint is the time to SCD or hemodynamically significant ventricular arrhythmia (VF or VT) during an average 4-year follow-up. Secondary endpoints include quality of life assessed by Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, heart failure related hospitalizations, and a cost-utility analysis. Clinical trials.gov identifier NCT01918215.

DISCUSSION

CMR GUIDE trial will add substantially to our understanding of the role of myocardial fibrosis and the risk of developing life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. If the superiority of a CMR-guided approach over standard care is proven, it may change international clinical guidelines, with the potential to considerably increase survival in this growing patient population.

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.

Sex differences in device therapy for heart failure: utilization, outcomes, and adverse events

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies of heart failure patients demonstrated significant improvement in exercise capacity, quality of life, cardiac left ventricular function, and survival from cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but the underenrollment of women in these studies is notable. Etiological and pathophysiological differences may result in different outcomes in response to this treatment by sex. The observed disproportionate representation of women suggests that many women with heart failure either do not meet current clinical criteria to receive CRT in trials or are not properly recruited and maintained in these studies.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review through May 2014 of clinical trials and registries of CRT use that stratified outcomes by sex or reported percent women included. One-hundred eighty-three studies contained sex-specific information.

RESULTS

Ninety percent of the studies evaluated included ≤ 35% women. Fifty-six articles included effectiveness data that reported response with regard to specific outcome parameters. When compared with men, women exhibited more dramatic improvement in specific parameters. In the studies reporting hazard ratios for hospitalization or death, women generally had greater benefit from CRT.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review confirms women are markedly underrepresented in CRT trials, and when a CRT device is implanted, women have a therapeutic response that is equivalent to or better than in men, while there is no difference in adverse events reported by sex.

Effect of digoxin on shocks in cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator patients with coronary artery disease

Digoxin provides symptomatic relief in patients with systolic heart failure, yet it has potential proarrhythmic mechanisms and has not been formally studied in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators (CRT-Ds). We evaluated the association between digoxin use and appropriate tachyarrhythmia therapy in patients with CRT-D with advanced heart failure, analyzing the incidence of appropriate device therapies and overall survival in 350 consecutive primary prevention recipients with CRT-D with baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%, non-right bundle-branch block native QRS complex ≥120 ms, New York Heart Association III to IV heart failure, and significant coronary artery disease. Digoxin was prescribed in 162 patients (46%) at discharge from CRT-D implant. Over 48 ± 32 months of follow-up, 59 patients (17%) received ≥1 appropriate shock. Digoxin therapy was associated with shorter time to first shock in intention-to-treat (corrected hazard ratio 2.18, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 3.87, p = 0.007) and on-treatment analysis (corrected hazard ratio 2.27, 95% confidence interval 1.27 to 4.07, p = 0.006). Patients prescribed digoxin had a lower baseline LVEF, and digoxin therapy was associated with increased risk of shocks only in patients with LVEF <22% (median); there was no increased risk in patients with LVEF ≥22%. Overall survival and incidence of antitachycardia pacing were similar regardless of digoxin therapy. In conclusion, digoxin therapy is associated with increased likelihood of appropriate CRT-D shocks for rapid ventricular arrhythmias in primary prevention patients with coronary artery disease, and this risk appears to be most evident in patients with more severe baseline LV dysfunction. Digoxin use should be reexamined prospectively in patients with CRT-D.

[Current value of 3D echocardiography in international guidelines]

Real-time 3D echocardiography is one of the most important developments in the field of non-invasive cardiac imaging within the last years. To investigate whether this new technology can be considered as a standard method the current guidelines and recommendations were reviewed. In the field of left ventricular function assessment, evaluation of mitral valve pathologies and peri-interventional monitoring of percutaneous valve repair procedures 3D echocardiography plays a major role. For other clinical applications, such as right heart assessment, congenital heart disease and stress echocardiography, a high potential is seen but evidence is currently too weak for general recommendations. However, in the near future no echo laboratory will be working without 3D modalities.

Predictors of sustained ventricular arrhythmias in cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are at high risk for ventricular arrhythmias (VAs), and risk stratification in this population remains poor.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study followed 269 patients (left ventricular ejection fraction <35%; QRS >120 ms; New York Heart Association class III/IV) undergoing CRT with a defibrillator for 553±464 days after CRT with defibrillator implantation to assess for independent predictors of appropriate device therapy for VAs. Baseline medication use, medical comorbidities, and echocardiographic parameters were considered. The 4-year incidence of appropriate device therapy was 36%. A Cox proportional hazard model identified left ventricular end-systolic diameter >61 mm as an independent predictor in the entire population (hazard ratio [HR], 2.66; P=0.001). Those with left ventricular end-systolic diameter >61 mm had a 51% 3-year incidence of VA compared with a 26% incidence among those with a less dilated ventricle (P=0.001). Among patients with left ventricular end-systolic diameter ≤61 mm, multivariate predictors of appropriate therapy were absence of β-blocker therapy (HR, 6.34; P<0.001), left ventricular ejection fraction <20% (HR, 4.22; P<0.001), and history of sustained VA (HR, 2.97; P=0.013). Early (<180 days after implant) shock therapy was found to be a robust predictor of hospitalization for heart failure (HR, 3.41; P<0.004) and mortality (HR, 5.16; P<0.001.)

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with CRT and a defibrillator, left ventricular end-systolic diameter >61 mm is a powerful predictor of VAs, and further risk stratification of those with less dilated ventricles can be achieved based on assessment of ejection fraction, history of sustained VA, and absence of β-blocker therapy.