Key result
The adaptive CRT (aCRT) algorithm significantly reduced the composite risk of cardiac death and/or heart failure hospitalization compared to non-adaptive CRT (HR 0.28; 95% CI 0.096-0.78; P=0.015).
Why the study?
Cardiac resynchronization therapy is less effective in patients with mildly wide QRS or non-LBBB, prompting investigation into the clinical effect of an adaptive CRT algorithm in these subgroups.
Does the adaptive CRT (aCRT) algorithm reduce cardiac death and/or heart failure hospitalization compared to non-adaptive CRT in patients with heart failure and QRS ≥120 ms?
Cohort (n=104)
Does the adaptive CRT (aCRT) algorithm reduce cardiac death and/or heart failure hospitalization compared to non-adaptive CRT in patients with heart failure and QRS ≥120 ms?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The adaptive CRT algorithm significantly reduced the composite risk of cardiac death or heart failure hospitalization compared to non-adaptive CRT, including in patients with mildly wide QRS or non-LBBB morphology.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is less effective in patients with mildly wide QRS or non-left bundle branch block (non-LBBB). A new algorithm of every minute's optimization (adaptive CRT: aCRT algorithm) is effective in patients with CRT devices. This study investigated the clinical effect of the aCRT algorithm, especially in mildly wide QRS (120≤QRS<150 ms) or non-LBBB patients receiving CRT. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study included 104 CRT patients (48 patients using the aCRT algorithm [adaptive group] and 56 patients not using the aCRT algorithm [non-adaptive group]). The primary endpoint was a composite clinical outcome of cardiac death and/or heart failure (HF) hospitalization. During a median follow-up of 700 days (interquartile range 362-1,173 days), aCRT reduced the risk of the clinical outcome, even in patients with mildly wide QRS or non-LBBB (log-rank P=0.0030 and P=0.0077, respectively) by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Use of the aCRT algorithm was an independent predictor of clinical outcomes in the multivariate analysis (hazard ratio (HR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.096-0.78, P=0.015), the same as in patients with mildly wide QRS (HR 0.12, 95% CI: 0.006-0.69, P=0.015). CONCLUSIONS: The new aCRT algorithm was useful and significantly reduced the risk of the clinical outcome, even in patients with mildly wide QRS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ueda et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=104). Adaptive CRT (aCRT) algorithm vs. Non-adaptive CRT (not using the aCRT algorithm) was evaluated on Composite clinical outcome of cardiac death and/or heart failure (HF) hospitalization (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.096-0.78, p=0.015). The adaptive CRT (aCRT) algorithm significantly reduced the composite risk of cardiac death and/or heart failure hospitalization compared to non-adaptive CRT (HR 0.28; 95% CI 0.096-0.78; P=0.015).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: