Key result
This review summarizes the methods, limitations, and guidelines for patient selection in cardiac resynchronization therapy to improve outcomes in severe heart failure.
This review summarizes methods and limitations for patient selection in cardiac resynchronization therapy to aid clinical decision-making.
May inform CRT selection in severe HF; leaves open prospective validation of refined criteria.
Since the implementation of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) the prognosis of patients with severe heart failure has been improved owing to a reduction in morbidity and mortality rates, as several multicenter trials have shown. However, several patients treated by CRT still lack improvement or even deteriorate during therapy. In some of them, this might be due to the severity and progression of chronic heart failure. In others, the criteria for the indication of CRT and/or optimized device programming might have not been met. Thus, one important option to improve CRT outcome is to improve CRT patient selection. A lot of publications describing various methods identifying a positive or negative prediction of CRT have been released. In summary, decision making based on all these partly contradictory publications indicate a strong need for guidelines for the use of such expensive therapy. The purpose of this article is to give an overview of CRT and summarize the different methods and the limitations of CRT patient selection parameters. With the focus of the different guidelines, this article tries to give an appropriate overview and aid decision making in CRT patients, including a short view of possible new indications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Turschner et al. (2010) conducted a review in Severe heart failure. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was evaluated. This review summarizes the methods, limitations, and guidelines for patient selection in cardiac resynchronization therapy to improve outcomes in severe heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: