Key result
Systematic in-hospital CRT optimization improves clinical status in ~34% of initial non-responders at 6 months.
Why the study?
The study sought to describe and evaluate the impact of a routine in-hospital CRT programme, including comprehensive HF evaluation and systematic echo-guided CRT optimization.
Does a routine systematic in-hospital echo-guided CRT optimization program improve clinical composite scores in heart failure patients post-implantation?
Cohort (n=227)
No
Does a routine systematic in-hospital echo-guided CRT optimization program improve clinical composite scores in heart failure patients post-implantation?
Routine echo-guided AV and VV delay optimization lacks significant clinical benefit beyond regular multidisciplinary care, supporting guidelines that advise against its systematic use in all CRT patients.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Does not support routine echo-guided CRT optimization beyond standard care; leaves open incremental value of systematic programs in observational data.
AIMS: This study sought to describe and evaluate the impact of a routine in-hospital cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) programme, including comprehensive heart failure (HF) evaluation and systematic echo-guided CRT optimization. METHODS AND RESULTS: CRT implanted patients were referred for optimization programme at 3 to 12 months from implantation. The program included clinical and biological status, standardized screening for potential cause of CRT non-response and systematic echo-guided atrioventricular and interventricular delays (AVd and VVd) optimization. Initial CRT-response and improvement at 6 months post-optimization were assessed with a clinical composite score (CCS). Major HF events were tracked during 1 year after optimization. A total of 227 patients were referred for CRT optimization and enrolled (71 ± 11 years old, 77% male, LVEF 30.6 ± 7.9%), of whom 111 (48.9%) were classified as initial non-responders. Left ventricular lead dislodgement was noted in 4 patients (1.8%), and loss or ≤90% biventricular capture in 22 (9.7%), mostly due to arrhythmias. Of the 196 patients (86%) who could undergo echo-guided CRT optimization, 71 (36.2%) required VVd modification and 50/144 (34.7%) AVd modification. At 6 months post-optimization, 34.3% of the initial non-responders were improved according to the CCS, but neither AVd nor VVd echo-guided modification was significantly associated with CCS-improvement. After one-year follow-up, initial non-responders maintained a higher rate of major HF events than initial responders, with no significant difference between AVd/VVd modified or not. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the necessity of a close, comprehensive and multidisciplinary follow-up of CRT patients, without arguing for routine use of echo-guided CRT optimization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moulin et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction requiring CRT (n=227). Systematic echo-guided CRT optimization program was evaluated on Clinical composite score (CCS) improvement at 6 months post-optimization. A systematic in-hospital CRT optimization program improved the clinical composite score in 34.3% of initial non-responders at 6 months, although echo-guided modifications were not significantly associated with this clinical improvement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: