Why the study?
Does implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device reduce all-cause mortality in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <=35%, markers of cardiac dyssynchrony, and persistent moderate or severe symptoms of heart failure despite pharmacological therapy?
Does implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device reduce all-cause mortality in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <=35%, markers of cardiac dyssynchrony, and persistent moderate or severe symptoms of heart failure despite pharmacological therapy?
The extension phase of the CARE-HF trial demonstrates that the mortality benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure patients with dyssynchrony persist and increase with longer follow-up.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports CRT implantation in eligible HF patients with dyssynchrony; extends mortality benefit evidence to longer-term RCT follow-up.
AIMS: The CArdiac REsynchronization-Heart Failure study randomized patients with left ventricular ejection fraction < or =35%, markers of cardiac dyssynchrony, and persistent moderate or severe symptoms of heart failure despite pharmacological therapy, to implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device or not. The main study observed substantial benefits on morbidity and mortality during a mean follow-up of 29.4 months [median 29.6, interquartile range (IQR) 23.6-34.6]. Prior to study closure, an extension phase lasting a further 8 months (allowing time for data analysis and presentation) was declared during which cross-over was discouraged. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was an extension of the already reported open-label randomized trial described above. The primary outcome of the extension phase was all-cause mortality from the time of randomization to completion of the extension phase. The secondary outcome was mode of death. The mean follow-up was 37.4 months (median 37.6, IQR 31.5-42.5, range 26.1-52.6 months). There were 154 deaths (38.1%) in 404 patients assigned to medical therapy and 101 deaths (24.7%) in 409 patients assigned to CRT (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.47-0.77, P<0.0001) without evidence of heterogeneity in pre-specified subgroups. A reduction in the risk of death due to heart failure (64 vs. 38 deaths; hazard ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.82, P=0.003) and sudden death was observed (55 vs. 32; hazard ratio 0.54, 95% CI 0.35-0.84, P=0.005). CONCLUSION: The benefits of CRT observed in the main trial persist or increase with longer follow-up. Reduction in mortality was due to fewer deaths both from worsening heart failure and from sudden death.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cleland et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: