Key result
Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy was associated with a significantly lower incidence of ventricular arrhythmias compared to non-response (35% vs. 58%, p<0.0061).
Why the study?
Does positive response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduce the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure?
Observational (n=126)
Yes
Does positive response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduce the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure?
Absolute Event Rate: 35% vs 58%
p-value: p=<0.0061
Echocardiographic response to CRT (improvement in LVEF) is associated with a significantly lower incidence of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure.
CRT response linked to fewer ventricular arrhythmias; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.
OBJECTIVES: The beneficial effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are thought to result from favorable left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling, however CRT is only successful in about 70% of patients. Whether response to CRT is associated with a decrease in ventricular arrhythmias (VA) is still discussed controversially. Therefore, we investigated the incidence of VA in CRT responders in comparison with non-responders. METHODS: In this nonrandomized, two-center, observational study patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure, LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%, and QRS duration >120 ms undergoing CRT were included. After 6 months patients were classified as CRT responders or non-responders. Incidence of VA was compared between both groups by Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression analysis. ROC analysis was performed to determine the aptitude of LVEF cut-off values to predict VA. RESULTS: In total 126 consecutive patients (64±11 years; 67%male) were included, 74 were classified as responders and 52 as non-responders. While the mean LVEF at baseline was comparable in both groups (25±7% vs. 24±8%; P = 0.4583) only the responder group showed an improvement of LVEF (36±6% vs. 24±7; p<0.0001) under CRT. In total in 56 patients VA were observed during a mean follow-up of 28±14 months, with CRT responders experiencing fewer VA than non-responders (35% vs. 58%, p<0.0061). Secondary preventive CRT implantation was associated with a higher likelihood of VA. As determined by ROC analysis an increase of LVEF by >7% was found to be a predictor of a significantly lower incidence of VA (AUC = 0.606). CONCLUSIONS: Improvement of left ventricular function under cardiac resynchronization therapy goes along with a reduced incidence of ventricular arrhythmia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eickholt et al. (2012) conducted an observational in Moderate-to-severe heart failure (n=126). Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response vs. CRT non-response was evaluated on Incidence of ventricular arrhythmias (p=<0.0061). Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy was associated with a significantly lower incidence of ventricular arrhythmias compared to non-response (35% vs. 58%, p<0.0061).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: