Key result
Device-detected atrial fibrillation in heart failure patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy was associated with a significantly higher risk of heart failure hospitalization (HR 3.05) and lower rates of optimal biventricular pacing compared to patients without atrial fibrillation.
Why the study?
AF can interfere with adequate biventricular pacing and reduce CRT benefits, but the effect of device-detected AF on clinical outcomes and optimal pacing required investigation.
Does device-detected atrial fibrillation reduce optimal biventricular pacing and worsen clinical outcomes in heart failure patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Population
174 patients undergoing CRT implantation at a tertiary center
Comparison
Device-detected AF vs no-AF in patients without preexisting AF
Design
Retrospective cohort study
Follow-up
Median 25.1 months
Authors
Loading...
Device-detected AF may warrant closer monitoring in CRT patients; leaves open whether targeted interventions improve pacing and outcomes.
Cohort (n=174)
No
Does device-detected atrial fibrillation reduce optimal biventricular pacing and worsen clinical outcomes in heart failure patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Hazard Ratio: 3.05 (95% CI 1.26–7.35)
Absolute Event Rate: 42.1% vs 13.9%
p-value: p=0.013
In heart failure patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy, incident device-detected atrial fibrillation significantly reduces the likelihood of achieving optimal biventricular pacing and is associated with worse clinical outcomes.
Yoon et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (n=174). Device-detected atrial fibrillation vs. No atrial fibrillation was evaluated on Heart failure hospitalization (HR 3.05, 95% CI 1.26-7.35, p=0.013). Device-detected atrial fibrillation in heart failure patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy was associated with a significantly higher risk of heart failure hospitalization (HR 3.05) and lower rates of optimal biventricular pacing compared to patients without atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: