Key result
AdaptivCRT pacing significantly reduced the incidence of atrial fibrillation episodes >48 hours compared to conventional CRT (8.7% vs 16.2%; HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.31-0.93; P=.03).
Why the study?
Does the AdaptivCRT algorithm reduce the incidence of atrial fibrillation in CRT-D-indicated heart failure patients compared to conventional CRT?
Population
CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D)-indicated heart failure patients
Comparison
AdaptivCRT algorithm for synchronized left… vs Conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy…
Design
RCT, 2:1 to receive either aCRT or convCRT pacing
Follow-up
mean 20.2 ± 5.9 months
Authors
Loading...
Supports AdaptivCRT in CRT-D patients to reduce long AF episodes; extends adaptive pacing evidence in heart failure.
RCT
2:1
Does the AdaptivCRT algorithm reduce the incidence of atrial fibrillation in CRT-D-indicated heart failure patients compared to conventional CRT?
Effect estimate: HR 0.54 (95% CI 0.31-0.93)
Absolute Event Rate: 8.7% vs 16.2%
p-value: p=.03
Continuous optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy using the AdaptivCRT algorithm significantly reduces the incidence of atrial fibrillation compared to conventional CRT in heart failure patients.
Birnie et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Heart failure with CRT-D indication. AdaptivCRT (aCRT) pacing vs. Conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (convCRT) pacing was evaluated on Episode of AF >48 consecutive hours as detected by device diagnostics (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.93, p=.03). AdaptivCRT pacing significantly reduced the incidence of atrial fibrillation episodes >48 hours compared to conventional CRT (8.7% vs 16.2%; HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.31-0.93; P=.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: