Real‐world behavior of CRT pacing using the AdaptivCRT algorithm on patient outcomes: Effect on mortality and atrial fibrillation incidence
Why the study?
Previous analyses demonstrated clinical benefit with the AdaptivCRT algorithm, but its effect on mortality and AF compared with standard CRT needed evaluation in a real-world population.
Does the AdaptivCRT algorithm improve survival and reduce atrial fibrillation incidence compared to standard CRT in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Population
1814 CRT patients with no reported long-standing AF history at implant
Comparison
aCRT ON vs standard CRT
Design
Prospective, nonrandomized registry
Follow-up
Mean 26.1 ± 16.5 months
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
May support aCRT in CRT candidates; extends prior analyses but remains hypothesis-generating pending RCTs.
Structured PICO
Does the AdaptivCRT algorithm improve survival and reduce atrial fibrillation incidence compared to standard CRT in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy?
P
Population
1,814 patients implanted with a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device from 2013-2018 with no reported long-standing atrial fibrillation history at implant, enrolled in the Medtronic Personalized CRT Registry.
I
Intervention
AdaptivCRT (aCRT) algorithm ON
C
Comparator
Standard CRT
O
Outcome
Patient mortality and atrial fibrillation (AF) incidencehard clinical
In a real-world registry, the use of the AdaptivCRT algorithm was associated with improved survival and a lower incidence of atrial fibrillation compared to standard CRT.
Limitations
- nonrandomized registry design
Cite This Study
Singh et al. (2020) studied this question.