Why the study?
Does CRT-ICD reduce the incidence of appropriate therapies for ventricular arrhythmias compared to ICD alone in patients with LVEF <35%?
Does CRT-ICD reduce the incidence of appropriate therapies for ventricular arrhythmias compared to ICD alone in patients with LVEF <35%?
In patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, CRT-ICD does not significantly reduce the incidence of appropriate ICD therapies compared to ICD alone.
CRT-ICD should not yet change device selection for arrhythmia prevention in severe LV dysfunction; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has significant benefits in selected patients, but its impact on the incidence of ventricular tachyarrhythmias remains the subject of debate. We analyzed the occurrence of appropriate therapies in patients undergoing CRT combined with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). We studied 123 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35%, who underwent successful implantation of CRT-ICD or ICD alone (primary prevention). Mean age was 63±12 years, LVEF 25±6%, and median follow-up 372 days. CRT-ICD devices were implanted in 63 patients (group A) and ICD alone in 60 (group B). In Group A 86% were clinical responders, with a lower prevalence of ischemic cardiomyopathy (30% vs. 72%), and more patients in NYHA class III before device implantation (90% vs. 7%) compared to those with ICD alone. There were no differences in the incidence of appropriate therapies (19% vs. 12%) or in the time to first therapy (305 days vs. 293 days). Overall mortality was 11% in group A and 12% in group B. Kaplan-Meier curves for arrhythmic events in patients with CRT showed no significant differences (HR 1.71, 95% CI 0.67-4.36, p=NS) compared to those without CRT. Despite a higher rate of responders in patients with CRT-ICD for primary prevention, the incidence of appropriate therapies was similar to those with an ICD alone. A terapêutica de ressincronização cardíaca (TRC) tem benefícios significativos em doentes seleccionados. O impacto desta modalidade na incidência de taquidisritmias ventriculares permanece controverso. Analisámos a ocorrência de terapêuticas apropriadas em doentes submetidos a TRC combinada com cardioversor-desfibrilhador (CDI). Estudo de 123 doentes com fracção de ejecção ventricular esquerda (FEVE) <35%, submetidos a implantação com sucesso de TRC-CDI ou CDI isoladamente (prevenção primária). Idade média foi 63±12 anos, FEVE de 25±6%, seguimento mediano de 372 dias. Implantou-se TRC-CDI em 63 doentes (grupo A) e CDI isoladamente em 60 doentes (grupo B). No grupo A tivemos 86% de respondedores clínicos, menor prevalência de cardiomiopatia isquémica (30% versus 72%), e mais doentes em classe III da NYHA antes da implantação do dispositivo (90% versus 7%) comparativamente com o grupo com CDI isoladamente. Não se identificaram diferenças relativamente à incidência de terapêuticas apropriadas (19% versus 12%) ou no tempo para a primeira terapêutica (305 dias versus 293 dias). A mortalidade total foi de 11% no grupo A e de 12% no grupo B. As curvas de Kaplan-Meier para eventos arrítmicos em doentes com TRC, não mostraram diferenças significativas (HR 3,02, IC 95% 0,82 – 11,09, p=NS) comparativamente com doentes sem TRC. Em doente submetidos a TRC-CDI por prevenção primária, apesar da elevada taxa de respondedores, a incidência de terapêuticas apropriadas não foi diferente do obtido em doentes com CDI isoladamente.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Timóteo et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: