Key result
Cardiac resynchronization therapy in adults with structural congenital heart disease and chronic heart failure yielded a positive clinical response in 66.7% of patients.
Why the study?
Evidence for CRT in adults with congenital heart disease and chronic heart failure is limited, with recommendations extrapolated from populations with structurally normal hearts.
Does CRT improve clinical response in adults with structural congenital heart disease and chronic heart failure?
Observational (n=27)
No
Does CRT improve clinical response in adults with structural congenital heart disease and chronic heart failure?
CRT demonstrates efficacy in adults with structural congenital heart disease and chronic heart failure, yielding a positive clinical response in 66.7% of patients, suggesting conventional criteria may not fully apply to this population.
CRT may warrant consideration in select adults with congenital heart disease and HF; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before broader adoption.
AIMS: Evidence for CRT in adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) and chronic heart failure is limited, with recommendations for its use extrapolated from the population with structurally normal hearts. This retrospective observational study investigates the efficacy of CRT in this heterogenous group, discussing factors predicting response to CRT. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients with structural ACHD who underwent CRT insertion or upgrade at a tertiary center in the United Kingdom were retrospectively studied. The primary outcome measure was clinical response to CRT, defined as improvement of NYHA class and/or improvement in systemic ventricular ejection fraction by one category. Secondary outcomes included change in QRS duration and adverse events. RESULTS: Thirty-seven percent of patients had a systemic right ventricle (sRV). RBBB was the commonest baseline QRS morphology (40.7%) despite this being an unfavorable characteristic for CRT. Overall, positive response to CRT was demonstrated in 18 patients (66.7%). NYHA class improved in 55.5% following CRT (p = .001) and 40.7% showed improvement in systemic ventricular ejection fraction (p = .118). There were no baseline characteristics that predicted response to CRT, and electrocardiographic measures such as QRS shortening post-CRT was not associated with positive response. Good response rates (60.0%) were demonstrated in those with sRV. CONCLUSION: CRT is efficacious in structural ACHD including in those who do not meet conventional criteria. Extrapolation of recommendations from adults with structurally normal hearts may be inappropriate. Future research should focus on improving patient selection for CRT, for example using techniques to better quantify mechanical dysynchrony and intra-procedural electrical activation mapping in these complex patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thompson et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Structural congenital heart disease and chronic heart failure (n=27). Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was evaluated on Clinical response to CRT, defined as improvement of NYHA class and/or improvement in systemic ventricular ejection fraction by one category. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in adults with structural congenital heart disease and chronic heart failure yielded a positive clinical response in 66.7% of patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: