Key result
Device-based optimization algorithms for cardiac resynchronization therapy appear practical and may deliver superior clinical outcomes compared to standard echocardiography in non-responders.
Why the study?
Does atrioventricular and interventricular optimization improve clinical outcomes in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Does atrioventricular and interventricular optimization improve clinical outcomes in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy?
While routine AV and VV optimization may not be mandatory for all CRT patients, device-based algorithms offer a practical alternative to echocardiography and should be considered in non-responders.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Hypothesis-generating for device-based optimization in CRT non-responders; prospective trials needed before practice change.
INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is one of the most important advances in heart failure management in the last twenty years. Approximately one-third of patients appear not to respond to therapy. Although there are a number of possible mechanisms for non-response, an important factor is suboptimal atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) timing intervals. There remains controversy over whether routinely optimizing intervals is necessary and there is no agreed gold standard methodology. Optimization has classically been performed using echocardiography which has limits related to resource use, time-cost and variable reproducibility. Newer optimization methods using device-based sensors and algorithms show promise in reducing heart-failure hospitalization compared with echocardiography. Areas covered: This review outlines the rationale for optimization, the principles of AV and VV optimization, the standard echocardiographic approach and newer device-based algorithms and the evidence base for their use. Expert commentary: The incremental gains of optimization are likely to be real, but small, compared to the overall improvement gained from cardiac resynchronization itself. At this time routine optimization may not be mandatory but should be performed where there is no response to CRT. Device-based optimization algorithms appear to be practical and in some cases, deliver superior clinical outcomes compared to echocardiography.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rowe et al. (2018) conducted a review in Heart failure (patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy). Atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy vs. Standard echocardiographic approach vs newer device-based algorithms was evaluated. Device-based optimization algorithms for cardiac resynchronization therapy appear practical and may deliver superior clinical outcomes compared to standard echocardiography in non-responders.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: