Key result
Cardiac resynchronization therapy is a mainstay for advanced heart failure with LBBB-type QRS prolongation, with skillful operators reaching implantation success rates in excess of 95%.
Why the study?
Does cardiac resynchronization therapy improve outcomes in patients with advanced heart failure and LBBB-type QRS prolongation?
Does cardiac resynchronization therapy improve outcomes in patients with advanced heart failure and LBBB-type QRS prolongation?
This review highlights the importance of optimal patient selection and procedural factors to maximize the benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy in advanced heart failure.
Supports CRT in advanced HF with LBBB; leaves open standardization of high success rates beyond expert centers.
A strong body of evidence exists to support cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) as a mainstay in the management of advanced heart failure for patients with LBBB-type QRS prolongation. Progress in technology has made percutaneous CRT easier to achieve. Skillful operators can readily reach implantation success rates in excess of 95%. Nevertheless, not every patient selected for CRT, according to current criteria, benefits from this therapy. Several factors contribute to the lack of benefit in these patients, including inadequate patient selection, lack of control of atrial arrhythmias, procedural factors and suboptimal pacemaker settings. It remains to be seen whether newer technology and pacing algorithms will increase response rates to CRT. The focus of this review will be to examine which patients benefit most from CRT and to assess methods for optimizing patient selection in order to achieve maximum benefit from this pivotal therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Madias et al. (2014) conducted a review in advanced heart failure with LBBB-type QRS prolongation. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was evaluated. Cardiac resynchronization therapy is a mainstay for advanced heart failure with LBBB-type QRS prolongation, with skillful operators reaching implantation success rates in excess of 95%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: