A 2015 review highlighting updates in guidelines, multimodality imaging, and lead technologies to improve patient selection and outcomes for cardiac resynchronisation therapy in heart failure.
Does not support changing CRT practice in HF; leaves open validation of 2015 imaging and lead updates in contemporary trials.
Despite improved understanding of the pathophysiology of heart failure (HF) and availability of better medical therapies, HF continues to grow as a cause of morbidity and mortality in Australia and worldwide. Over the past decade, cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT), or biventricular pacing, has been embraced as a powerful weapon against this growing epidemic. However, much has changed in our understanding of dyssynchrony in HF, and this has led to a change in guidelines to ensure more appropriate selection of CRT candidates to improve the 'non-response' rate. More data have also emerged about the use of CRT in atrial fibrillation and in pacemaker-dependent patients. There has also been a growing focus on multimodality imaging to guide patient selection and lead positioning. Exciting new lead technologies are also emerging, with the potential to improve CRT outcomes further.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Voskoboinik et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: