Why the study?
Panoramic CRT-D studies focusing on etiology and indication are scarce, and controversy remains regarding the requirement of a defibrillator for primary prevention CRT in non-ischemic patients.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Population
Patients with de novo CRT-D implantations from 2011 to 2020
Comparison
Non-ischemic vs ischemic etiology and primary vs secondary prevention indications
Design
Registry-based study
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support etiology-guided CRT-D selection in primary prevention; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation.
Background: Panoramic studies in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) focusing on the etiology and indication are scarce. Besides, a controversy exists regarding requirement of a defibrillator in non-ischemic patients for primary prevention with CRT. Methods: Annual trends of de novo CRT-D implantations from 2011 to 2020 and outcomes of those between January 2011 and August 2015 were analyzed from the Japan cardiac device treatment registry (JCDTR) and New JCDTR database. Conclusions: Proportion of non-ischemic etiology was much higher than that of ischemic one in the CRT-D cohort. Based on the higher odds of appropriate ICD therapy, non-ischemic patients for primary prevention appear to be prudently selected in Japan.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yokoshiki et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: