Key result
Systematic CRT optimization at implant, 3, and 6 months was associated with more improved patients on a composite clinical endpoint compared to non-systematic optimization (85% vs 61%, P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does systematic AVD and VVD optimization improve clinical outcomes in CRT-P patients?
Population
199 patients assigned to CRT-pacemaker with NYHA class III/IV and left ventricular ejection fraction <35%
Comparison
Systematic optimization of atrioventricular and… vs Non-systematic optimization during the 1 year…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
1 year
Authors
Loading...
Frequent AVD/VVD optimization was associated with better CRT response; leaves open whether routine optimization improves outcomes.
Cohort (n=199)
Does systematic AVD and VVD optimization improve clinical outcomes in CRT-P patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 85% vs 61%
p-value: p=<0.001
Frequent optimization of AVD and VVD in CRT-P patients is associated with improved long-term clinical response, including reduced mortality and hospitalizations.
Delnoy et al. (2013) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=199). Systematic optimization of atrioventricular and interventricular delays (at implant, 3, and 6 months) vs. Non-systematic optimization (less than three times during the 1 year study) was evaluated on Composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure-related hospitalization, NYHA functional class, and Quality of Life score at 1 year (percentage of improved patients) (p=<0.001). Systematic CRT optimization at implant, 3, and 6 months was associated with more improved patients on a composite clinical endpoint compared to non-systematic optimization (85% vs 61%, P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: