Does cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and ICD backup improve outcomes differently in ischemic versus non-ischemic cardiomyopathy?
This review highlights that while CRT reduces mortality equally in ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, non-ischemic patients experience better reverse remodeling, and ischemic patients may benefit more from ICD backup.
Abstract 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.
Yokoshiki et al. (Fri,) studied this question.