Prevalence of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy without back-up ICD

Arrhythmic and mortality outcomes in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy without defibrillator

INTRODUCTION

The routine implantation of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillators in all patients who are candidates for this treatment is now being negotiated, mainly in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the arrhythmic and mortality outcomes following CRT implantation in DCM, as well as the necessity for defibrillator capabilities in that particular group of patients.

METHODS

we included 67- patients with DCM with EF ≤ 35%, QRS duration >130 msec and NYHA class II-IV, or those with EF ≤ 35% with indications of permanent pacing for implantation of CRT-P. Patients were followed to obtain good CRT response. Improved clinical outcomes were defined as improvement in at least one NYHA class, ≥5% increase in LVEF, and ≥15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume versus baseline. Patients were classified into responder and non-responder. Patients were followed for 36 months regarding all-cause morbidity mainly ventricular tachycardia and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

CRT responder patients had better clinical outcomes than CRT non-responder patients (post NYHA, 1.3 ± 0.5 vs. 2.5 ± 0.6, p < 0.0001; post LVEF 30.0 ± 1.6 vs. 20.3 ± 2.2%, p < 0.0001; LVESV, 151.7 ± 7.6 vs. 190.4 ± 9.0 ml, p < 0.0001), with lower ventricular arrhythmia (p < 0.0001), lower mortality (p = 0.015) and lower all-cause morbidity (p < 0.001). This survival advantage may be related to the response to CRT response determined by clinical and echocardiographic parameters over a 36-month period of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that CRT-P implantation without defibrillation backup is an encouraging treatment option for patients with DCM, principally those who responded to it. It may result in cost savings, a decrease in complications, and an improvement in all-cause morbidity, particularly ventricular arrhythmia and survival.

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.

Survival of patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy upgraded to CRT does not depend on defibrillation therapy

BACKGROUND

Permanent right ventricular pacing (RVP) results in cardiac dyssynchrony that may lead to heart failure and may be an indication for the use of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The study aimed to evaluate predictors of outcomes in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) if upgraded to CRT.

METHODS

One hundred fifteen patients, 75.0 years old (IQR 67.0-80.0), were upgraded to CRT due to the decline in left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) caused by the long-term RVP. A retrospective analysis was performed using data from hospital and outpatient clinic records and survival data from the National Health System.

RESULTS

The prior percentage of RVP was 100.0% (IQR 97.0-100.0), with a QRS duration of 180.0 ms (IQR 160.0-200.0). LVEF at the time of the upgrade procedure was 27.0% (IQR 21.0-32.75). The mean follow-up was 980 ± 522 days. The primary endpoint, death from any cause, was met by 26 (22%) patients. Age > 82 years (HR 5.96; 95% CI 2.24-15.89; P = .0004) and pre-CRT implantation LVEF < 20% (HR 5.63; 95%CI 2.19-14.47; P = .0003), but neither the cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation (HR 1.00; 95%CI 0.45-2.22; P = 1.00), nor the presence of atrial fibrillation (HR 1.22; 95%CI 0.56-2.64; P = .62), were independently associated with all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSION

Advanced age and an extremely low LVEF, but neither the presence of atrial fibrillation nor implanting an additional high voltage lead, influence the all-cause mortality in patients after long-term RVP, when upgraded to CRT.

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.

Importance of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Back-Up in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Recipients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

It remains to be determined whether patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) benefit from the addition of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a literature search looking for studies of patients implanted with CRTs. Comparisons were performed between patients receiving CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) versus CRT-pacemaker (CRT-P). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The relative risk (RR) and hazard ratio (HR, when available) were used as measurements of treatment effect. Nineteen entries were entitled for inclusion, comprising 12 378 patients (7030 receiving CRT-D and 5348 receiving CRT-P) and 29 799 patient-years of follow-up. Those receiving CRT-D were younger, were more often males, had lower NYHA class, lower prevalence of atrial fibrillation, higher prevalence of ischemic heart disease, and were more often on beta-blockers. Ten studies showed significantly lower mortality rates with the CRT-D device, while the remaining 9 were neutral. The pooled data of studies revealed that CRT-D patients had significantly lower mortality rates compared with CRT-P patients (mortality rates: CRT-D 16.6% versus CRT-P 27.1%; RR=0.69, 95% CI 0.62-0.76; P<0.00001). The number needed to treat to prevent one death was 10. The observed I(2) values showed moderate heterogeneity among studies (I(2)=48%). The benefit of CRT-D was more pronounced in ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR=0.70, 95% CI 0.59-0.83, P<0.001, I(2)=0%), but a trend for benefit, albeit of lower magnitude, could also be seen in non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (HR=0.79, 95% CI 0.61-1.02, P=0.07, I(2)=36%).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of the ICD associates with a reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality in CRT patients. This seems to be more pronounced in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.