Key result
Cardiac resynchronization therapy is limited to 10%-15% of heart failure patients, and typically 30% do not derive benefit, highlighting the need for careful patient selection.
Optimal outcomes with CRT depend heavily on careful patient selection, maximal medical therapy, and individualized device programming.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
CRT patient selection must start with LV systolic dysfunction; reinforces guideline-directed indications while highlighting need for refined responder criteria.
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has shown a substantial reduction in heart failure patient morbidity and mortality, with improvement in quality of life as well as symptoms. The therapy is, however, limited to approximately 10%–15% of heart failure patients and, typically, 30% do not derive benefit from the device. For optimal outcomes with CRT, the correct selection of patients is of paramount importance. The first parameter is depressed left ventricular systolic function, and the second is a wide QRS complex. Different nuances among clinical trials have rendered guidelines pragmatic and compromising, but also conflicting and confusing. A large proportion of real-life CRTs are implanted in patients where the evidence for benefit is scarce or not present. Further, for optimal benefit, patients require evidence-directed medical therapy at maximal doses, effective placement of ventricular leads, and high biventricular pacing percentages, along with optimized atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular interval device programming. These items, as well as specific clinical characteristics, such as AV block and atrial fibrillation, in the context of CRT indications, are discussed. This review focuses on these issues to guide the clinician through guidelines, with an evidence-based update on the current status of CRT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ruwald et al. (2014) conducted a review in Heart failure. Cardiac resynchronization therapy was evaluated. Cardiac resynchronization therapy is limited to 10%-15% of heart failure patients, and typically 30% do not derive benefit, highlighting the need for careful patient selection.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: