Key result
The 2013 ESC guidelines qualify ~18% of HF patients for CRT, significantly exceeding 2015 criteria.
Why the study?
Eligibility criteria for CRT in HF have regularly changed, prompting an investigation into how CRT eligibility in real-life HF patients evolved over the past fifteen years.
How do changes in international guidelines over 15 years affect the eligibility of real-life heart failure patients for cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Observational
Yes
How do changes in international guidelines over 15 years affect the eligibility of real-life heart failure patients for cardiac resynchronization therapy?
There is significant variability in CRT eligibility recommendations over the past 15 years, indicating potential underuse and a need for more personalized management in heart failure.
Guideline variability may drive inconsistent CRT eligibility in HF; leaves open need for consensus on optimal, personalized criteria.
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) applied to selected patients with heart failure (HF) improves their prognosis. In recent years, eligibility criteria for CRT have regularly changed. This study aimed to investigate the changes in eligibility of real-life HF patients for CRT over the past fifteen years. We reviewed European and North American guidelines from this period and applied them to HF patients from the ESC-HF Pilot and ESC-Long-Term Registries. Taking into consideration the criteria assessed in this study (including all classes of recommendations i.e., class I, IIa and IIb, as well as patients with AF and SR), the 2013 (ESC) guidelines would have qualified the most patients for CRT (266, 18.3%), while the 2015 (ESC) guidelines would have qualified the least (115, 7.9%; p-value for differences between all analyzed papers <0.0001). There were only 26 patients (1.8%) who would be eligible for CRT using the class I recommendations across all of the guidelines. These results demonstrate the variability in recommendations for CRT over the years. Moreover, this data indicates underuse of this form of pacing in HF and highlights the need for more studies in order to improve the outcomes of HF patients and further personalize their management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tymińska et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Heart failure. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) guidelines vs. Different guideline years (e.g., 2013 vs 2015 ESC) was evaluated on Eligibility for CRT (p=<0.0001). Application of the 2013 ESC guidelines qualified the most heart failure patients for CRT (18.3%), while the 2015 ESC guidelines qualified the least (7.9%, p<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: