Key result
CRT or conduction system pacing in HFmrEF increased LVEF from baseline, but showed no significant difference versus usual care in comparative analyses.
Why the study?
Guidelines restrict CRT to LVEF ≤ 35% or pacing indications, leaving the benefits of CRT or conduction system pacing uncertain in HFmrEF with electrical dyssynchrony.
Does CRT or CSP improve LVEF and reverse remodeling in adults with HFmrEF and electrical dyssynchrony without a primary pacing indication?
Meta-Analysis (n=311)
Does CRT or CSP improve LVEF and reverse remodeling in adults with HFmrEF and electrical dyssynchrony without a primary pacing indication?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In patients with HFmrEF and electrical dyssynchrony, CRT or CSP is associated with favorable echocardiographic, functional, and biomarker improvements compared to baseline, though randomized comparative data are lacking.
Background Patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and electrical dyssynchrony often experience progressive adverse remodeling, yet current guidelines restrict cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% or pacing indications. The benefits of CRT or conduction system pacing (CSP) in HFmrEF remain uncertain. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative and single-arm studies involving adults with HFmrEF (LVEF 36%–50%) and no conventional primary pacing indication who underwent de novo CRT or conduction system pacing (CSP). MEDLINE and Embase were searched from inception. For continuous variables, mean differences (MD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Comparative analyses were performed between CRT/CSP and control groups. For single-arm cohorts, within-patient change from baseline and its standard error were calculated and synthesized as effect estimates relative to zero using generic inverse-variance methods. Random-effects models were used for the primary analyses because of substantial heterogeneity among studies. Results Seven studies (one randomized trial, one prospective comparative cohort, and five single-arm cohorts) comprising 311 patients were included. In comparative analyses, no significant difference in LVEF was observed between CRT/CSP and usual care using a random-effects model. Compared with baseline, CRT/CSP was associated with increased LVEF (MD 7.88% points; 95% CI 2.80–12.95; p < 0.01), reduced LV end-diastolic volume (MD 28.97 mL; 95% CI 11.88–46.07; p < 0.01) and LV end-systolic volume (MD 24.19 mL; 95% CI 5.56–42.83; p = 0.01), and decreased LV end-diastolic and end-systolic diameters. Early resynchronization was also associated with improved 6-minute walk distance (MD 68.30 m; 95% CI 43.08–93.53; p < 0.01), lower New York Heart Association class (MD 0.96; 95% CI 0.78–1.13; p < 0.01), narrower QRS duration (MD 40.93 ms; 95% CI 34.65–47.20 p < 0.01), and lower NT-proBNP levels (MD 430.58 pg/mL; 95% CI 298.06–563.11; p < 0.01) at follow-up. Conclusions In patients with HFmrEF and electrical dyssynchrony, CRT/CSP was associated with favorable remodeling, functional, electrical, and biomarker changes relative to baseline. However, the available evidence remains limited and largely non-randomized. These findings are hypothesis-generating and should be confirmed in adequately powered randomized trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Krishan et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and electrical dyssynchrony (n=311). Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) or conduction system pacing (CSP) vs. Usual care or baseline was evaluated on LVEF change from baseline (MD 7.88% points, 95% CI 2.80-12.95, p=<0.01). CRT or conduction system pacing in HFmrEF increased LVEF from baseline, but showed no significant difference versus usual care in comparative analyses.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: