Key result
CRT linked to ~11% median SVEF improvement in pediatric and CHD patients with HF.
Why the study?
Cardiac resynchronization therapy is an important therapeutic option in pediatric and congenital heart disease patients with reduced systemic ventricular ejection fraction, but identifying optimal responders remains challenging.
Does cardiac resynchronization therapy improve systemic ventricular ejection fraction in pediatric and congenital heart disease patients with heart failure and electrical dyssynchrony?
Cohort (n=491)
Yes
Does cardiac resynchronization therapy improve systemic ventricular ejection fraction in pediatric and congenital heart disease patients with heart failure and electrical dyssynchrony?
Cardiac resynchronization therapy significantly improves systemic ventricular ejection fraction in pediatric and congenital heart disease patients, particularly those with lower baseline SVEF, systemic LV, and conduction delay to the lateral wall.
May support CRT consideration in select pediatric CHD HF cases; extends observational data but leaves open randomized confirmation.
Background Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an important therapeutic option in selected pediatric and congenital heart disease (CHD) patients with reduced systemic ventricular (SV) ejection fraction (EF). However, the identification of optimal responders is challenging. Objective To identify predictors of response to CRT in children and CHD patients at 5 large quaternary referral centers. Methods Patients were <21 years or had CHD; had SVEF <45%; symptomatic heart failure; and significant electrical dyssynchrony prior to CRT. Primary outcome was defined as an ordinal response at 6/12months: (1) Improved EF [≥5%], (2) Unchanged SVEF, (3) Worse SVEF. Secondary outcome utilized a propensity score-matched control cohort. Response to CRT was defined using longitudinal trajectory of SVEF up to latest follow-up. Results In total, 167 eligible CRT recipients were identified across the 5 centers. 150 had comprehensive data at 6/12months: 96(64%) with improved SVEF, 26(17%) unchanged, 28(19%) worsened. Mean increase in SVEF was 11% [IQR 3-21%]. On univariable ordinal regression, lower SVEF (p=0.013), biventricular circulation (p=0.022), systemic LV (p=0.021), and conduction delay to lateral wall of SV (p=0.01) were associated with positive response. For assessment of secondary outcome, 324 controls were identified. Mean follow-up 4.2(±3.7) yrs. Almost all subgroups demonstrated improved SVEF trend with CRT, except those with systemic RV (p=0.69) or without prior single site pacemaker (p=0.20). Conclusion CRT in children and CHD patients frequently results in an improvement in SVEF. Those with lower SVEF, conduction delay to lateral wall of the SV and those with systemic LV are most likely to respond. Condensed Abstract Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an important therapeutic option in selected pediatric and congenital heart disease (CHD) patients with reduced systemic ventricular (SV) ejection fraction (EF). However, the identification of optimal responders is challenging. In this multicenter study, pediatric and CHD CRT recipients with heart failure and EF<45% were identified. The primary outcome was change in EF at 6/12months. Those with lower baseline SVEF, conduction delay to lateral wall of the SV and/or systemic LV were most likely to respond to CRT. When compared to propensity score-matched controls, the CRT groups also demonstrated a significantly better long-term EF trajectory.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chubb et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Pediatric and congenital heart disease with heart failure (n=491). Cardiac resynchronization therapy vs. Baseline was evaluated on Median absolute change in systemic ventricular ejection fraction (SVEF) at 6-12 months (p=<0.001). Cardiac resynchronization therapy improved systemic ventricular ejection fraction by a median of 11% at 6 to 12 months in pediatric and congenital heart disease patients with heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: