Key result
Cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator improved the heart failure clinical composite response at 1 year compared to dual-chamber ICD (41% vs 16%; P=0.004) in ischemic cardiomyopathy.
Why the study?
Does a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator improve the heart failure clinical composite response in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, narrow QRS (<120 ms), and mechanical dyssynchrony compared to a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator?
RCT (n=111)
Does a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator improve the heart failure clinical composite response in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, narrow QRS (<120 ms), and mechanical dyssynchrony compared to a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator?
Absolute Event Rate: 41% vs 16%
p-value: p=0.004
CRT-D significantly improved clinical status compared to dual-chamber ICD in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, narrow QRS duration, and mechanical dyssynchrony.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports CRT-D in selected ischemic cardiomyopathy with narrow QRS and dyssynchrony; extends CRT benefit beyond wide-QRS populations.
Muto et al. (2013) conducted an RCT in Ischemic cardiomyopathy with narrow QRS and mechanical dyssynchrony (n=111). Cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) vs. Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was evaluated on Heart failure clinical composite response (improved, unchanged, or worsened) at 1 year (p=0.004). Cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator improved the heart failure clinical composite response at 1 year compared to dual-chamber ICD (41% vs 16%; P=0.004) in ischemic cardiomyopathy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: