Key result
Automatic algorithms that change AV or VV intervals in CRT devices did not significantly improve all-cause mortality (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.71-1.03; P=0.13) or heart failure hospitalizations.
Why the study?
Algorithms that automatically adjust atrioventricular and interventricular intervals in CRT devices are common, but their clinical efficacy is unknown.
Do automatic algorithms that change AV and VV intervals dynamically improve mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, or clinical symptoms in patients with heart failure and CRT?
Meta-Analysis (n=8,531)
Do automatic algorithms that change AV and VV intervals dynamically improve mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, or clinical symptoms in patients with heart failure and CRT?
Effect estimate: OR 0.90 (95% CI 0.71-1.03)
Absolute Event Rate: 10.3% vs 11.3%
p-value: p=0.13
Automatic algorithms for dynamic AV and VV interval adjustment in CRT devices do not significantly improve mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, or clinical symptoms compared to standard CRT.
Automatic AV/VV algorithms add no benefit in CRT; confirms fixed programming suffices for mortality and HF outcomes.
BACKGROUND Algorithms to automatically adjust atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) intervals in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices are common, but their clinical efficacy is unknown.OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate automatic CRT algorithms in patients with heart failure for the reduction of mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, and clinical improvement.METHODS We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with CRT using automatic algorithms that change AV and VV intervals dynamically without manual input, on a beat-to-beat basis.We performed a subgroup analysis including intracardiac electrogram-based (EGM) algorithms and contractility-based algorithms.RESULTS Nine RCTs with 8531 participants were included, of whom 4275 (50.1%) were randomized to automatic algorithm.Seven of the 9 trials used EGM-based algorithms, and 2 used contractility sensors.There was no difference in all-cause mortality (10.3% vs 11.3%; odds ratio [OR] 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.03;P 5 .13;I 2 5 0%) or heart failure hospitalizations (15.0%vs 16.1%; OR 0.924; 95% CI 0.81-1.04;P 5 .194;I 2 5 0%) between the automatic algorithm group and the control group.Study-defined clinical improvement was also not significantly different between groups (66.6% vs 63.3%; risk ratio 1.01; 95% CI 0.95-1.06;P 5 .82;I 2 5 50%).In the contractility-based subgroup, there was a trend toward greater clinical improvement with the use of the automatic algorithm (75% vs 68.3%; OR 1.45; 95% CI 0.97-2.18;P 5 .07;I 2 5 40%), which did not reach statistical significance.The overall risk of bias was low.CONCLUSION Automatic algorithms that change AV or VV intervals did not improve mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, or cardiovascular symptoms in patients with heart failure and CRT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Knijnik et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis in Heart failure (n=8,531). Automatic algorithms for AV and VV interval adjustment vs. Control group was evaluated on All-cause mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71-1.03, p=0.13). Automatic algorithms that change AV or VV intervals in CRT devices did not significantly improve all-cause mortality (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.71-1.03; P=0.13) or heart failure hospitalizations.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: