In non-LBBB patients with a prolonged PR interval, CRT-D reduced the risk of heart failure or death compared to ICD (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.13-0.57; P<0.001), but may be deleterious in those with normal PR.
RCT (n=537)
Yes
Does CRT-D reduce heart failure or death in non-LBBB patients with prolonged PR interval compared to ICD therapy?
CRT-D provides significant clinical benefit in non-LBBB patients with a prolonged PR interval, but may increase mortality in those with a normal PR interval.
Effect estimate: HR 0.27 (95% CI 0.13-0.57)
p-value: p=<0.001
Background— In Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial–Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT), patients with non–left bundle branch block (LBBB; including right bundle branch block, intraventricular conduction delay) did not have clinical benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D). We hypothesized that baseline PR interval modulates clinical response to CRT-D therapy in patients with non-LBBB. Methods and Results— Non-LBBB patients (n=537; 30%) were divided into 2 groups based on their baseline PR interval as normal (including minimally prolonged) PR (PR <230 ms) and prolonged PR (PR ≥230 ms). The primary end point was heart failure or death. Separate secondary end points included heart failure events and all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare risk of end point events by CRT-D to implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in the PR subgroups. There were 96 patients (22%) with a prolonged PR and 438 patients (78%) with a normal PR interval. In non-LBBB patients with a prolonged PR interval, CRT-D treatment was associated with a 73% reduction in the risk of heart failure/death (hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.13–0.57; P <0.001) and 81% decrease in the risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.13–0.57; P <0.001) compared with implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. In non-LBBB patients with normal PR, CRT-D therapy was associated with a trend toward an increased risk of heart failure/death (hazard ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.96–2.19; P =0.078; interaction P <0.001) and a more than 2-fold higher mortality (hazard ratio, 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.12–4.09; P =0.022; interaction P <0.001) compared with implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. Conclusions— The data support the use of CRT-D in MADIT-CRT non-LBBB patients with a prolonged PR interval. In non-LBBB patients with a normal PR interval, implantation of a CRT-D may be deleterious. Clinical Trial Registration— http://clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique Identifier: NCT00180271.
Kutyifa et al. (Wed,) conducted a rct in Non-left bundle branch block (n=537). Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) vs. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy was evaluated on Heart failure or death (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13-0.57, p=<0.001). In non-LBBB patients with a prolonged PR interval, CRT-D reduced the risk of heart failure or death compared to ICD (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.13-0.57; P<0.001), but may be deleterious in those with normal PR.