Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Older Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Recipients Using a Pacemaker versus a Defibrillator

Time-trend treatment effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without defibrillator on mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

This study aimed to investigate the impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) on mortality, comparing it with CRT with a pacemaker (CRT-P). Additionally, the study sought to identify subgroups, evaluate the time trend in treatment effects, and analyze patient characteristics, considering the changing indications over the past decades.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PubMed, CENTRAL, and Embase up to October 2021 were screened for studies comparing CRT-P and CRT-D, focusing on mortality. Altogether 26 observational studies were selected comprising 128 030 CRT patients, including 55 469 with CRT-P and 72 561 with CRT-D device. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator was able to reduce all-cause mortality by almost 20% over CRT-P [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76-0.94; P < 0.01] even in propensity-matched studies (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.80-0.87; P < 0.001) but not in those with non-ischaemic aetiology (HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.79-1.15; P = 0.19) or over 75 years (HR: 1.08; 95% CI 0.96-1.21; P = 0.17). When treatment effect on mortality was investigated by the median year of inclusion, there was a difference between studies released before 2015 and those thereafter. Time-trend effects could be also observed in patients' characteristics: CRT-P candidates were getting older and the prevalence of ischaemic aetiology was increasing over time.

CONCLUSION

The results of this systematic review of observational studies, mostly retrospective with meta-analysis, suggest that patients with CRT-D had a lower risk of mortality compared with CRT-P. However, subgroups could be identified, where CRT-D was not superior such as non-ischaemic and older patients. An improved treatment effect of CRT-D on mortality could be observed between the early and late studies partly related to the changed characteristics of CRT candidates.

Long-term outcome of cardiac resynchronization therapy patients in the elderly

Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of mortality and hospitalization in the elderly. However, data are scarce about their response to device treatment such as cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to evaluate the age-related differences in the effectiveness of CRT, procedure-related complications, and long-term outcome. Between 2000 and 2020, 2656 patients undergoing CRT implantation were registered and analyzed retrospectively. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to their age: group I, < 65; group II, 65-75; and group III, > 75 years. The primary endpoint was the echocardiographic response defined as a relative increase > 15% in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) within 6 months, and the secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, heart transplantation, or left ventricular assist device implantation. Procedure-related complications were also assessed. After implantation, LVEF showed significant improvement both in the total cohort [28% (IQR 24/33) vs. 35% (IQR 28/40); p < 0.01)] and in each subgroup (27% vs. 34%; p < 0.01, 29% vs. 35%; p < 0.01, 30% vs. 35%; p < 0.01). Response rate was similar in the 3 groups (64% vs. 62% vs. 56%; p = 0.41). During the follow-up, 1574 (59%) patients died. Kaplan-Meier curves revealed a significantly lower survival rate in the older groups (log-rank p < 0.001). The cumulative complication rates were similar among the three age groups (27% vs. 28% vs. 24%; p = 0.15). Our results demonstrate that CRT is as effective and safe therapy in the elderly as for young ones. The present data suggest that patients with appropriate indications benefit from CRT in the long term, regardless of age.

Complications and Mortality Following CRT-D Versus ICD Implants in Older Medicare Beneficiaries With Heart Failure

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to assess the comparative effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) over implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) alone in older Medicare patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

BACKGROUND

Despite growing numbers of older patients with HFrEF, the benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in this group are largely unknown.

METHODS

A cohort of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years of age with HFrEF and enrolled in Medicare Part D who underwent CRT-D or ICD implantation from January 2008 to August 2015 was identified. Beneficiaries were divided by age (65-74, 75-84, and 85+ years), and outcomes were compared between the CRT-D and ICD groups after inverse probability weighting.

RESULTS

Compared with the ICD group, the CRT-D group was older and more likely to be White, be female, and have left bundle branch block. After weighting, overall complications were high across age and device groups (14%-20%). The 1-year mortality was high across all groups. In the 2 oldest age strata, the hazard of death was lower in the CRT-D group (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.86-0.95 and HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.72-0.90, respectively; P < 0.001); the hazard of heart failure hospitalization was lower for CRT-D vs ICD in the 85+ years age group (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74-0.92; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In older Medicare beneficiaries undergoing ICD with or without CRT, complications and 1-year mortality were high. Compared with ICD alone, CRT-D was associated with a lower hazard of mortality in patients ≥74 years of age and lower hazard of HF hospitalization in those ≥85 years of age. These findings support the use of CRT in eligible older patients undergoing ICD implantation.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy using a pacemaker or a defibrillator: Patient selection and evidence to support it

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment for patients with heart failure (HF), myocardial dysfunction and prolonged ventricular depolarization on surface electrocardiogram. CRT can be delivered by a pacemaker (CRT-P) or a combined pacemaker-defibrillator (CRT-D). Although these two types of devices are very different in size, function, and cost, current published guidelines do not distinguish between them, leaving the choice of which device to implant to the treating physician and the informed patient. In this paper, we review the published CRT clinical trial literature with focus on the outcomes of HF patients treated with CRT-P versus CRT-D. We also attempt to provide guidance as to the appropriate choice of CRT device type, in the absence of randomized prospective trials geared to answer this specific question.

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.

The benefits of defibrillator in heart failure patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines did not provide recommendations on indications of an additional implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) to patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and it still remains controversial due to lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials.

METHOD

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from the inception to May 2020 were systematically screened for studies reporting on the comparison of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) and cardiac resynchronization therapy with pacemaker (CRT-P), focusing on the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of all-cause mortality. We pooled the effects using a random-effect model.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies encompassing 69,919 patients were included in this meta-analysis. With no restriction to characteristics of including population, CRT-D was associated with a lower all-cause mortality compared with CRT-P significantly (aHR: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-0.87, I²  = 36.8%, p < .001). This mortality benefit was also observed in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (aHR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.64-0.86, I²  = 0%, p < .001). However, there is no significant difference in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) (aHR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.82-1.01, I²  = 0%, p = .087), older age (age ≥75 years, aHR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.83-1.12, I²  = 0%, p = .610). Subgroup analysis was performed and indicated the survival benefit of CRT-D for primary prevention compared with CRT-P (aHR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.79-0.95, I²  = 0%, p = .003).

CONCLUSION

After adjusted the differences in clinical characteristics, additional ICD therapy was associated with a reduced all-cause mortality in patients receiving CRT. However, our work suggested that additional ICD may not be applied to elderly (≥75 years) or patients with NICM.

Trends in the use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy device in advancing age: Analysis of the Japan cardiac device treatment registry database

BACKGROUND

Trends of de novo implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) including implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) or pacemaker (CRT-P) in advancing age are unknown.

METHODS

Analysis of data from the Japan cardiac device treatment registry (JCDTR) with an implantation date between January 2006 and December 2016 was performed focusing on advancing age of ≧75 years.

RESULTS

The cohort included 17 564 ICD, 9470 CRT-D and 1087 CRT-P recipients for de novo implantation. The rate of patients ≧75 years of age increased from 17.1% to 20.5% in ICD implantation (P = .052), from 19.7% to 30.0% in CRT-D implantation (P < .0001), and from 40.0% to 64.0% in CRT-P implantation (P = .17). There was an apparent increase in the percentage of nonischemic patients aged ≧75 years receiving ICD (10.9% in 2006 to 16.4% in 2016, P = .0008) and CRT-D (17.1% in 2006 to 27.8% in 2016, P = .0001). The implantation for primary prevention ICD (P = .059) and CRT-D (P = .012) was also associated with a temporal increase in the percentage of patients aged ≧75 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Proportion of patients ≧75 years of age for de novo CIED implantation gradually increased from 2006 to 2016, presumably because of the growing number of nonischemic cardiomyopathy and heart failure patients requiring primary prevention of sudden cardiac death.

Gender Differences in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Device Choice and Outcome in Patients ≥75 Years of Age with Heart Failure

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established therapy for heart failure and can be delivered through a CRT pacemaker (CRT-P) or a CRT defibrillator (CRT-D). CRT-P devices are smaller and less expensive, have better battery longevity, and have been subject to fewer recalls and advisories but cannot deliver high-energy shocks to terminate potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmias. As published guidelines do not distinguish between CRT-P and CRT-D indications, we examined the practice of prescribing these devices in older women and men with heart failure. A total of 512 CRT recipients (age ≥75 years, 26% women, 21% CRT-P) were included in this analysis. Baseline characteristics were collected on all patients, and overall survival was compared by gender and type of CRT device implanted. Women were more likely to receive CRT-Ps than men (26% vs 19%). Men with CRT-Ps were significantly older than women with CRT-Ps and both men and women with CRT-Ds (p = 0.04). In addition, women had lower all-cause mortality compared with men (hazard ratio [HR] 0.75, confidence interval [CI] 0.58 to 0.99, p = 0.04), mainly among CRT-P recipients (HR 0.48, CI 0.26 to 0.8, p = 0.02), but this association was attenuated after adjusting for differences in patient characteristics (HR 0.56, CI 0.26 to 1.18, p = 0.13). In conclusion, women are more likely to receive CRT-Ps than men. Whether this difference is driven by patient preference or physician biases remains unclear. Women with CRT, particularly CRT-Ps, have a better overall survival than men. These differences, which may be driven by unbalanced baseline characteristics of patients or by differences in gender response to CRT, deserve further investigation.

Sex-specific mortality differences in heart failure patients with ischemia receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy

Background

Recent studies have reported prognosis differences between male and female heart failure patients following cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, the potential clinical factors that underpin these differences remain to be elucidated.

Methods

A meta-analysis was performed to investigate the factors that characterize sex-specific differences following CRT. This analysis involved searching the Medline (Pubmed source) and Embase databases in the period from January 1980 to September 2016.

Results

Fifty-eight studies involving 33445 patients (23.08% of whom were women) were analyzed as part of this study. Only patients receiving CRT with follow-up greater than six months were included in our analysis. Compared with males, females exhibited a reduction of 33% (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.62–0.73; P < 0.0001) and 42% (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.46–0.74; P = 0.003) in all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization or heart failure, respectively. Following a stratified analysis of all-cause mortality, we observed that ischemic causes (p = 0.03) were likely to account for most of the sex-specific differences in relation to CRT.

Conclusion

These data suggest that women have a reduced risk of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization or heart failure following CRT. Based on the results from the stratified analysis, we observed more optimal outcomes for females with ischemic heart disease. Thus, ischemia are likely to play a role in sex-related differences associated with CRT in heart failure patients. Further studies are required to determine other indications and the potential mechanisms that might be associated with sex-specific CRT outcomes.

Survival and Heart Failure Hospitalization in Patients With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With or Without a Defibrillator for Primary Prevention in Japan - Analysis of the Japan Cardiac Device Treatment Registry Database

BACKGROUND

Randomized control trials comparing the effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, with (CRT-D) or without (CRT-P) a defibrillator, are scarce in heart failure patients with no prior sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias.Methods and Results:The Japan Cardiac Device Treatment Registry (JCDTR) has data for 2714 CRT-D and 555 CRT-P recipients for primary prevention with an implantation date between January 2011 and August 2015. Of these patients, follow-up data were available for 717. Over the mean follow-up period of 21 months, Kaplan-Meier curves of survival free of combined events for all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization (whichever came first) diverged between the CRT-D (n=620) and CRT-P (n=97) groups with a rate of 22% vs. 42%, respectively, at 24 months (P=0.0011). However, this apparent benefit of CRT-D over CRT-P was no longer significant after adjustment for covariates. With regard to mortality, including heart failure death or sudden cardiac death, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients without sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias enrolled in the JCDTR, there was no significant difference in mortality between the CRT-D and CRT-P groups, despite a lower trend in CRT-D recipients. This study was limited by large clinical and demographic differences between the 2 groups.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy in ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using a biventricular pacing system has been an effective therapeutic strategy in patients with symptomatic heart failure with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35% or less and a QRS duration of 130 ms or more. The etiology of heart failure can be classified as either ischemic or non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Ischemic etiology of patients receiving CRT is prevalent predominantly in North America, moderately in Europe, and less so in Japan. CRT reduces mortality similarly in both ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, whereas reverse structural left ventricular remodeling occurs more favorably in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Because the substrate for ventricular arrhythmias appears to be more severe in cases of ischemic as compared with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, the use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) backup method could prolong the long-term survival, especially of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, even in the presence of CRT. The aim of this review article is to summarize the effects of CRT on outcomes and the role of ICD backup in ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy.