Key result
COPD patients receiving a CRT device had a significantly lower incidence of worsening tricuspid regurgitation (16.2%) compared to single-chamber (37.0%) and dual-chamber (30.0%) devices.
Why the study?
RV lead placement can worsen TR, yet data were lacking on whether CRT reduces TR compared with non-CRT devices in COPD patients.
Does cardiac resynchronization therapy prevent worsening tricuspid regurgitation compared to right ventricular pacing in patients with COPD?
Cohort (n=154)
Blinded evaluators
No
Does cardiac resynchronization therapy prevent worsening tricuspid regurgitation compared to right ventricular pacing in patients with COPD?
In patients with COPD requiring pacing, an upfront strategy of cardiac resynchronization therapy is associated with a significantly lower incidence of worsening tricuspid regurgitation compared to standard single- or dual-chamber right ventricular pacing.
Background: Right ventricular (RV) lead placement can worsen tricuspid regurgitation (TR). TR is known to be associated with lower survival irrespective of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) or pulmonary hypertension (PH). Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often have PH and pre-existent TR with higher morbidity and mortality from worsening TR. Prior studies are lacking to indicate if cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) may be more beneficial in lessening TR in COPD patients. Therefore, we sought to study if patients with COPD will have less TR with CRT versus non-CRT devices. Methods: We performed a retrospective, single-center analysis on 154 COPD patients (mean age = 71.69 ± 10.58, males = 54.14%) that required single-chamber (n = 27), dual-chamber (n = 90), or CRT (n = 37) devices. TR severity, LVEF and right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) were evaluated by two cardiologists in a blinded fashion. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Chi-square tests were applied for continuous and categorical variables respectively. The primary endpoint was a change in the severity of TR comparing pre-device versus post-device echocardiogram. Secondary endpoints included changes in LVEF and RVSP. Results: COPD patients, who underwent a CRT device had a significantly lower incidence of worsening TR (16%) when compared to single- (37%) (P = 0.001) and dual-chamber devices (30%) (P = 0.02). The increase in RVSP was similar between the groups. There was an expected improvement in LVEF in the CRT group. Conclusions: COPD patients receiving a CRT device were least likely to have worsening TR, compared to single- or dual-chamber devices. Since both COPD and progression in TR may result in poor outcomes, our study may suggest that an upfront strategy of CRT rather than a single- or dual-chamber device may be more beneficial in COPD patients, especially with pre-existent TR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Livesay et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (n=154). Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device vs. Single-chamber or dual-chamber devices was evaluated on Change in the severity of tricuspid regurgitation (incidence of worsening TR) (p=0.001). COPD patients receiving a CRT device had a significantly lower incidence of worsening tricuspid regurgitation (16.2%) compared to single-chamber (37.0%) and dual-chamber (30.0%) devices.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: