Key result
Upgrading to CRT-D versus CRT-P in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy without prior ventricular arrhythmias resulted in 0% vs 2.9% sudden arrhythmic deaths.
Why the study?
Does upgrade to CRT-D compared to CRT-P reduce sudden arrhythmic death in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and no history of sustained ventricular arrhythmias?
Cohort (n=199)
Does upgrade to CRT-D compared to CRT-P reduce sudden arrhythmic death in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and no history of sustained ventricular arrhythmias?
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 2.88%
Patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy without prior ventricular arrhythmias have a very low risk of sudden arrhythmic death, suggesting that CRT-P may be sufficient without the need for defibrillator backup.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
CRT-D upgrade may lower sudden death risk in pacing-induced cardiomyopathy; leaves open whether this justifies routine defibrillator addition in arrhythmia-naive patients.
Barra et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (n=199). CRT-Defibrillator (CRT-D) vs. CRT-Pacemaker (CRT-P) was evaluated on Incidence of ventricular arrhythmias and the risk of sudden arrhythmic death. Upgrading to CRT-D versus CRT-P in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy without prior ventricular arrhythmias resulted in 0% vs 2.9% sudden arrhythmic deaths.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: