Key result
Cardiac resynchronization therapy improved all-cause mortality, NYHA class, and hospitalization rates to a similar relative extent in heart failure patients with or without ischemic heart disease.
Why the study?
Does cardiac resynchronization therapy improve outcomes similarly in heart failure patients with ischemic versus non-ischemic etiology?
RCT (n=813)
Does cardiac resynchronization therapy improve outcomes similarly in heart failure patients with ischemic versus non-ischemic etiology?
Cardiac resynchronization therapy provides similar relative clinical benefits in heart failure patients regardless of ischemic or non-ischemic etiology, despite differences in baseline severity and reverse remodeling.
Supports similar relative CRT benefits across HF etiologies; leaves open absolute differences and requires randomized confirmation.
AIMS: Cardiac dyssynchrony is common in patients with heart failure, whether or not they have ischaemic heart disease (IHD). The effect of the underlying cause of cardiac dysfunction on the response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is unknown. This issue was addressed using data from the CARE-HF trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (n = 813) were grouped by heart failure aetiology (IHD n = 339 vs. non-IHD n = 473), and the primary composite (all-cause mortality or unplanned hospitalization for a major cardiovascular event) and principal secondary (all-cause mortality) endpoints analysed. Heart failure severity and the degree of dyssynchrony were compared between the groups by analysing baseline clinical and echocardiographic variables. Patients with IHD were more likely to be in NYHA class IV (7.5 vs. 4.0%; P = 0.03) and to have higher NT-proBNP levels (2182 vs. 1725 pg/L), indicating more advanced heart failure. The degree of dyssynchrony was more pronounced in patients without IHD (assessed using mean QRS duration, interventricular mechanical delay, and aorta-pulmonary pre-ejection time). Left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular end-systolic volume improved to a lesser extent in the IHD group (4.53 vs. 8.50% and -35.68 vs. -58.52 cm(3)). Despite these differences, CRT improved all-cause mortality, NYHA class, and hospitalization rates to a similar extent in patients with or without IHD. CONCLUSION: The benefits of CRT in patients with or without IHD were similar in relative terms in the CARE-HF study but as patients with IHD had a worse prognosis, the benefit in absolute terms may be greater.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wikstrom et al. (2008) conducted an RCT in Heart failure (n=813). Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) vs. Control was evaluated on All-cause mortality or unplanned hospitalization for a major cardiovascular event. Cardiac resynchronization therapy improved all-cause mortality, NYHA class, and hospitalization rates to a similar relative extent in heart failure patients with or without ischemic heart disease.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: