The Effect of Chronic Kidney Disease on Mortality with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Management of patients with heart failure and chronic kidney disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure are often co-existing conditions due to a shared pathophysiological process involving neurohormonal activation and hemodynamic maladaptation. A wide range of pharmaceutical and interventional tools are available to patients with CKD, consisting of traditional ones with decades of experience and newer emerging therapies that are rapidly reshaping the landscape of medical care for this population. Management of patients with heart failure and CKD requires a stepwise approach based on renal function and the clinical phenotype of heart failure. This is often challenging due to altered drug pharmacokinetics interactions with various degrees of kidney function and frequent adverse effects from the therapy that lead to poor patient tolerance. Despite a great body of clinical evidence and guidelines that have offered various treatment options for patients with heart failure and CKD, respectively, patients with CKD are still underrepresented in heart failure clinical trials, especially for those with advanced CKD and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Future studies are needed to better understand the generalizability of these therapeutic options among heart failures with different stages of CKD.

Association of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease with procedural complications and inpatient outcomes of leadless pacemaker implantations across the United States

BACKGROUND

Leadless pacemakers have emerged as a promising alternative to transvenous pacemakers in patients with kidney disease. However, studies investigating leadless pacemaker outcomes and complications based on kidney dysfunction are limited.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) with inpatient complications and outcomes of leadless pacemaker implantations.

METHODS

National Inpatient Sample and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes were used to identify patients with CKD and ESRD who underwent leadless pacemaker implantations in the United States from 2016 to 2020. Study end points assessed included inpatient complications, outcomes, and resource utilization of leadless pacemaker implantations.

RESULTS

A total of 29,005 leadless pacemaker placements were identified. Patients with CKD (n = 5245 [18.1%]) and ESRD (n = 3790 [13.1%]) were younger than patients without CKD and had higher prevalence of important comorbidities. In crude analysis, ESRD was associated with higher prevalence of major complications, peripheral vascular complications, and inpatient mortality. After multivariable adjustment, CKD and ESRD were associated with inpatient mortality (CKD: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.62 [95% CI, 1.40-1.86]; ESRD: aOR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.18-1.63]) and prolonged length of stay (CKD: aOR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.46-1.66]; ESRD: aOR, 1.81 [95% CI 1.67-1.96]). ESRD was also associated with higher hospitalization costs (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.50-1.77) and major complications (aOR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.13-1.57) after leadless pacemaker implantation.

CONCLUSION

Approximately one-third of patients undergoing leadless pacemaker implantation had CKD or ESRD. CKD and ESRD were associated with greater length and cost of stay and inpatient mortality.

Paving a Path to Equity in Cardiorenal Care

Cardiorenal syndrome encompasses a dynamic interplay between cardiovascular and kidney disease, and its prevention requires careful examination of multiple predisposing underlying conditions. The unequal distribution of diabetes, heart failure, hypertension, and kidney disease requires special attention because of the influence of these conditions on cardiorenal disease. Despite growing evidence regarding the benefits of disease-modifying agents (e.g., sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors) for cardiovascular, kidney, and metabolic (CKM) disease, significant disparities remain in access to and utilization of these essential therapeutics. Multilevel barriers impeding their use require multisector interventions that address patient, provider, and health system-tailored strategies. Burgeoning literature also describes the critical role of unequal social determinants of health, or the sociopolitical contexts in which people live and work, in cardiorenal risk factors, including heart failure, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. This review outlines (i) inequality in the burden and treatment of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and heart failure; (ii) disparities in the use of key disease-modifying therapies for CKM diseases; and (iii) multilevel barriers and solutions to achieve greater pharmacoequity in the use of disease-modifying therapies. In addition, this review provides summative evidence regarding the role of unequal social determinants of health in cardiorenal health disparities, further outlining potential considerations for future research and intervention. As proposed in the 2023 American Heart Association presidential advisory on CKM health, a paradigm shift will be needed to achieve cardiorenal health equity. Through a deeper understanding of CKM health and a commitment to equity in the prevention, detection, and treatment of CKM disease, we can achieve this critical goal.

Cardiac Device Therapy in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: An Update

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are frequently interconnected and their association leads to an exponential increase in the risk of both fatal and non-fatal events. In addition, the burden of arrhythmias in CKD patients is increased. On the other hand, the presence of CKD is an important factor that influences the decision to pursue cardiac device therapy. Data on CKD patients with device therapy are scarce and mostly derives from observational studies and case reports. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is associated with decreased mortality, reduced heart failure symptoms, and improved renal function in early stages of CKD. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are associated with a significant reduction in the mortality of CKD patients only for the secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) is preferred in patients who meet the established criteria. The need for cardiac pacing is increased three-fold in dialysis patients. CKD is an independent risk factor for infections associated with cardiac devices.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy: present and future

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well-established therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block, who remain symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy. Despite the long-standing clinical evidence, as well as the familiarity of cardiac electrophysiologists with the implantation technique, CRT via BVP cannot be achieved or may result ineffective in up to one-third of the patients. Therefore, new alternative techniques, such as conduction system pacing and left ventricular pacing, are emerging as potential alternatives to this technique, not only in case of BVP failure, but also as a stand-alone first choice due to several potential advantages over traditional CRT. Specifically, due to its procedural characteristics, left bundle branch area pacing appears to be the most convincing technique, showing comparable efficacy outcomes when compared with traditional CRT, not increasing short-term device-related complications, as well as improving procedural times. However, transvenous leads remain a major limitation of all these pacing modalities. To overcome this limit, a leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing has been developed as an additional tool to achieve a left endocardial activation, although being still associated with non-negligible pitfalls, limiting its current use in clinical practice. This article focuses on the current state and latest progresses in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Prognostic value of the MELD-XI score in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy

Aims

Multi‐organ dysfunction was recently reported to be a common condition in patients with heart failure (HF). The Model for End‐stage Liver Disease eXcluding International normalized ratio (MELD‐XI) score reflects liver and kidney function. The prognostic relevance of this score has been reported in patients with a variety of cardiovascular diseases who are undergoing interventional therapies. However, the relationship between the severity of hepatorenal dysfunction assessed by the MELD‐XI score and the long‐term clinical outcomes of HF patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has not been evaluated.

Methods and results

Clinical records of 283 patients who underwent CRT implantation between March 2003 and October 2020 were retrospectively evaluated (mean age 67 ± 12, 22.6% female). Blood samples were collected before CRT implantation. Patients were divided into three groups based on tertiles of the MELD‐XI score: first tertile (MELD‐XI = 9.44, n = 95), second tertile (9.44 < MELD‐XI < 13.4, n = 94), and third tertile (MELD‐XI ≥ 13.4, n = 94). The primary endpoint was all‐cause mortality. Compared with the other groups, the third tertile group exhibited significantly older age, higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus and hypertension, lower haemoglobin level, and higher N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide level (all P < 0.05). The functional CRT response rate was also significantly lower in the third tertile group (P = 0.011). During a median follow‐up of 30 months (inter‐quartile range, 9–67), 105 patients (37.1%) died. Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed that patients with a higher MELD‐XI score had a greater risk of all‐cause mortality (log‐rank test: P < 0.001). Even after adjustment for clinically relevant factors and a conventional risk score, the MELD‐XI score was still associated with mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.04, 95% confidence interval: 1.00–1.07, P = 0.014, and adjusted hazard ratio: 1.04, 95% confidence interval: 1.01–1.09, P = 0.005, respectively). A higher MELD‐XI score was associated with a greater risk of all‐cause mortality than a lower MELD‐XI score regardless of whether a pacemaker or defibrillator was implanted (log‐rank test: P = 0.010 and P < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusions

Impaired hepatorenal function assessed by the MELD‐XI score was associated with older age, higher prevalence of multiple co‐morbidities, severity of HF, lower CRT response rates, and subsequent all‐cause mortality in HF patients undergoing CRT implantation. These results suggest that the MELD‐XI score can provide additional prognostic information and may be useful for improving risk stratification in this population.

Association between CRT(D)/ICD and renal insufficiency: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without a defibrillator (CRT(D)) and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) may reduce the risk of arrhythmia or heart failure-specific mortality and improves the prognosis of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or dialysis. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between CRT(D)/ICD and renal insufficiency. Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, and Pubmed were systematically searched from inception to 29 October 2019. We included studies that report all-cause mortality of patients with renal insufficiency who received CRT(D)/ICD therapy. Twenty-six studies (n = 119,263) were included, exploring the relationship between CRT(D)/ICD and renal insufficiency from two aspects: (1) Compared with ICD-only, CRT(D) was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality in CKD patients (odds ratios (OR) = 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.60 to 0.75). For non-primary prevention (secondary prevention or both), the analysis revealed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the ICD group than in the no-ICD group (OR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.55). (2) CKD increased all-cause mortality in comparison with control group (OR = 2.12; 95% CI, 1.85 to 2.44), and so did dialysis (OR = 2.53; 95% CI, 2.34 to 2.73). Furthermore, compared with CKD3 (eGFR: 30-59 ml/min/1.73 m² ), CKD4/5 (eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m² ) was observed to have a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality (OR = 2.70; 95% CI, 1.93 to 3.80). This review shows a clear association between CRT(D)/ICD and renal insufficiency in the aspect of all-cause mortality, and may provide a reference for the clinical application of CRT(D)/ICD.

Renal function and the long-term clinical outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without defibrillation

Background and Aims

Patients with moderate‐to‐severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) are underrepresented in clinical trials of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)‐defibrillation (CRT‐D) or CRT‐pacing (CRT‐P). We sought to determine whether outcomes after CRT‐D are better than after CRT‐P over a wide spectrum of CKD.

Methods and Results

Clinical events were quantified in relation to preimplant estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) after CRT‐D (n = 410 [39.2%]) or CRT‐P (n = 636 [60.8%]) implantation. Over a follow‐up period of 3.7 years (median, interquartile range: 2.1–5.7), the eGFR < 60 group (n = 598) had a higher risk of total mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.28; P = 0.017), total mortality or heart failure (HF) hospitalization (aHR: 1.32; P = 0.004), total mortality or hospitalization for major adverse cardiac events (MACEs, aHR: 1.34; P = 0.002), and cardiac mortality (aHR: 1.33; P = 0.036), compared to the eGFR ≥ 60 group (n = 448), after covariate adjustment. In analyses of CRT‐D versus CRT‐P, CRT‐D was associated with a lower risk of total mortality (eGFR ≥ 60 HR: 0.65; P = 0.028; eGFR < 60 HR: 0.64, P = 0.002), total mortality or HF hospitalization (eGFR ≥ 60 aHR: 0.66; P = 0.021; eGFR < 60 aHR: 0.69, P = 0.007), total mortality or hospitalization for MACEs (eGFR ≥ 60 aHR: 0.70; P = 0.039; eGFR < 60 aHR: 0.69, P = 0.005), and cardiac mortality (eGFR ≥ 60 aHR: 0.60; P = 0.026; eGFR < 60 aHR: 0.55; P = 0.003).

Conclusion

In CRT recipients, moderate CKD is associated with a higher mortality and morbidity compared to normal renal function or mild CKD. Despite less favorable absolute outcomes, patients with moderate CKD had better outcomes after CRT‐D than after CRT‐P.

Clinical outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy with and without a defibrillator in elderly patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND

Evidence regarding the incremental benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with a defibrillator (CRT-D) versus without (CRT-P) in elderly patients with heart failure is limited. We compared mortality and cardiac hospitalisation between CRT-D and CRT-P in the elderly.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review identified all consecutive patients with age ≥75 with CRT implantation over the last 10 years at a Canadian tertiary care cardiac centre. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and cumulative incidence curves were used to compare mortality and time to first cardiac hospitalisation, respectively, with CRT-D versus CRT-P over a 3 year period. Analyses were also repeated with propensity score matching based on age, sex, primary versus secondary prevention, date of implant, and Charlson Comorbidity Index.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy CRT patients were identified. A total of 128 received CRT-D while 42 received CRT-P. Median age was 79 (IQR 77-81), and the majority were male (83%). CRT-P patients had a higher burden of comorbidities (Charlson score 7, IQR 6-8) than CRT-D patients (Charlson score 5, IQR 5-7; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in survival between the two groups in an unmatched comparison (P = 0.69) and with a propensity score-matched cohort (P = 0.91). Secondary prevention CRT-D patients had a higher risk of hospitalisation compared to primary prevention CRT-D patients; however, there was no significant difference in hospitalisation between the CRT-D and CRT-P groups.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests there is no significant difference in mortality or cardiac hospitalisation between CRT-D and CRT-P in elderly patients with heart failure.

Narrowing filtered QRS duration on signal-averaged electrocardiogram predicts outcomes in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients with nonischemic heart failure

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the impact of changes in the filtered QRS duration (fQRS) on signal-averaged electrocardiograms (SAECGs) from pre- to postimplantation on the clinical outcomes in nonischemic heart failure (HF) patients under cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

METHODS

We studied 103 patients with nonischemic HF and sinus rhythm who underwent CRT implantation. SAECGs were obtained within 1 week before and 1 week after implantation and narrowing fQRS was defined as a decrease in fQRS from pre- to postimplantation. Echocardiography was performed before and 6 months after CRT implantation. The primary outcome was death from any cause. The secondary outcomes were hospitalization due to worsened HF and occurrence of ventricular tachyarrhythmias.

RESULTS

Of the 103 CRT patients, 53 (51%) showed narrowing fQRS. Left ventricular end-diastolic volume and end-systolic volume were significantly reduced (both p < .001), and the left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly increased (p < .001) after CRT in patients with narrowing fQRS, but not in patients with nonnarrowing fQRS. During a median follow-up period of 33 months, patients with narrowing fQRS exhibited better survival than patients with nonnarrowing fQRS (p = .007). A lower incidence of hospitalization due to worsened HF (p < .001) and a lower occurrence of ventricular tachyarrhythmias (p = .071) were obtained in patients with narrowing fQRS. After adjusting for confounding variables, narrowing fQRS was associated with a low risk of mortality (HR 0.27, p = .006).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggested that narrowing fQRS on SAECG after CRT implantation predicts LV reverse remodeling and long-term outcomes in nonischemic HF patients.

Impact of Renal Function on Survival After Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with worse survival in patients with heart disease including those with implantable devices. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can potentially improve renal function. To assess the relation between the change in renal function and survival with CRT, 238 patients undergoing initial CRT with defibrillator implantation between 2002 and 2011 were followed. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), before implantation and 6 ± 3 months after CRT was calculated. Patients were grouped at baseline into mild (stage I/II) or advanced (stage III/IV) CKD. Patients with end-stage renal disease were excluded. The mean follow-up time was 4.3 years. Multivariate analysis of baseline clinical characteristics showed that only renal function predicted the change in eGFR over the first 6 months of CRT. In the subgroup with mild CKD, eGFR decreased (78.5 ± 17.3 to 67.8 ± 26.8 p <0.001), whereas eGFR did not change in the subgroup with advanced CKD (45.6 ± 11.1 to 46.8 ± 17.0, p = 0.46). Patients with advanced CKD had higher mortality than those with mild CKD (p <0.002). In both subgroups, an increase in eGFR was associated with improved survival (hazard ratio = 0.79, p <0.001). In conclusion, baseline renal function and the subsequent change in eGFR are associated with long-term survival with CRT.

Impact of baseline renal function on all-cause mortality in patients who underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves both morbidity and mortality in selected patients with heart failure and increased QRS duration. However, chronic kidney disease (CKD) may have an adverse effect on patient outcome. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the existing data regarding the impact of baseline renal function on all-cause mortality in patients who underwent CRT.

METHODS

Medline database was searched systematically, and studies evaluating the effect of baseline renal function on all-cause mortality in patients who underwent CRT were retrieved. We performed three separate analyses according to the comparison groups included in each study. Data were analyzed using Review Manager software (RevMan version 5.3; Oxford, UK).

RESULTS

We included 16 relevant studies in our analysis. Specifically, 13 studies showed a statistically significant higher risk of all-cause mortality in patients with impaired baseline renal function who underwent CRT. The remaining three studies did not show a statistically significant result. The quantitative synthesis of five studies showed a 19% decrease in all-cause mortality per 10-unit increment in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) [HR: 0.81, 95% CI (0.73-0.90), p<0.01, 86% I²]. Additionally, we demonstrated that patients with an eGFR<60 mL/min/1.73 m² had an all-cause mortality rate of 66% [HR: 1.66, 95% CI (1.37-2.02), p<0.01, 0% I²], which was higher than in those with an eGFR≥60 mL/min/1.73 m².

CONCLUSION

Baseline renal dysfunction has an adverse effect on-all cause mortality in patients who underwent CRT.

Electro-echocardiographic Indices to Predict Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Non-response on Non-ischemic Cardiomyopathy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) threw lights on heart failure treatment, however, parts of patients showed nonresponse to CRT. Unfortunately, it lacks effective parameters to predict CRT non-response. In present study, we try to seek effective electro-echocardiographic predictors on CRT non-response. This is a retrospective study to review a total of 227 patients of dyssynchronous heart failure underwent CRT implantation. Logistic analysis was performed between CRT responders and CRT non-responders. The primary outcome was the occurrence of improved left ventricular ejection fraction 1 year after CRT implantation. We concluded that LVEDV > 255 mL (OR = 2.236; 95% CI, 1.016-4.923) rather than LVESV > 160 mL (OR = 1.18; 95% CI, 0.544-2.56) and TpTe/QTc > 0.203 (OR = 5.206; 95% CI, 1.89-14.34) significantly predicted CRT non-response. Oppositely, S wave > 5.7 cm/s (OR = 0.242; 95% CI, 0.089-0.657), E/A > 1 (OR = 0.211; 95% CI, 0.079-0.566), E'/A' > 1 (OR = 0.054; 95% CI, 0.017-0.172), CLBBB (OR = 0.141; 95% CI, 0.048-0.409), and QRS duration >160 ms (OR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.305-0.922) surprisingly predicted low-probability of CRT non-response.