Key result
Among 101 older heart failure patients, CRT-P was associated with comparable quality of life scores to CRT-D at 6 months post-implantation, with no significant differences observed.
Why the study?
Data comparing the impact of CRT-P versus CRT-D on quality of life in older heart failure patients are lacking.
Does CRT-P compared to CRT-D improve quality of life in older heart failure patients?
Cohort (n=101)
Does CRT-P compared to CRT-D improve quality of life in older heart failure patients?
In older heart failure patients, CRT-P and CRT-D provide comparable quality of life improvements at 6 months post-implantation.
May support CRT-P as QoL alternative to CRT-D in older HF; leaves open randomized confirmation before practice change.
Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves quality of life (QOL) in heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction. Clinicians may have difficulty choosing between CRT with a pacemaker (CRT-P) or a defibrillator (CRT-D) for older patients. CRT-P devices are smaller, have more battery longevity, are less prone to erosions or recalls, and do not deliver shocks. These factors may impact patients' QOL, but data on such comparisons are lacking. Objectives: We examined the impact of CRT-P versus CRT-D on the QOL of older (≥75 years) HF patients who qualified for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. Settings/Subjects/Measurements: We enrolled 101 CRT recipients and assessed QOL at baseline and at six-month post-implant using the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the Minnesota living with heart failure (MLHF) questionnaires. Results: The average age of enrolled patients was 81 years, 27% were women, and 40 received a CRT-P device. After adjusting for baseline QOL score, age, sex, HF functional class, and the occurrence of adverse events, we found no significant differences in QOL outcomes between CRT-P and CRT-D recipients based on either the subscales or the composite scores for the SF-36 or MLHF questionnaires at six-months post-implantation. Conclusions: Older CRT-P and CRT-D recipients report comparable QOL scores six months after device implantation. Larger cohort studies with longer follow-up are needed to accurately assess potential QOL differences between CRT-D and CRT-P recipients to guide clinical decision making and ensure the right balance of risk versus benefit in these patients. Appropriate goals-of-care discussions are the corner stone of clinical decision making regarding defibrillator therapy. As such, even as the data stand at present, there is a need for more deliberate referral of older patients with HF to Palliative Care Specialists, or to Cardiologists trained in Palliative Care Medicine. clinicaltrials.gov listing: NCT03031847.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dhande et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=101). Cardiac resynchronization therapy with a pacemaker (CRT-P) vs. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) was evaluated on Quality of life (QOL) assessed by SF-36 and MLHF questionnaires. Among 101 older heart failure patients, CRT-P was associated with comparable quality of life scores to CRT-D at 6 months post-implantation, with no significant differences observed.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: