Key result
Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator reduced the overall risk of sustained VT/VF compared to ICD alone (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.52-1.03; P=0.07), with significant benefit emerging after 6 months.
Why the study?
Does CRT-D reduce the time-dependent risk of death or sustained VT/VF compared to ICD in patients from the MADIT-RIT trial?
RCT (n=1,499)
Does CRT-D reduce the time-dependent risk of death or sustained VT/VF compared to ICD in patients from the MADIT-RIT trial?
Hazard Ratio: 0.73 (95% CI 0.52–1.03)
p-value: p=0.07
CRT-D provides early and sustained mortality benefits compared to ICD alone, but the reduction in ventricular tachyarrhythmias only emerges after 6 months of therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
CRT-D shows early sustained mortality benefit but delayed VT/VF reduction; leaves open optimal timing and mechanisms in primary-prevention patients.
Stockburger et al. (2015) conducted an RCT in ventricular tachyarrhythmias (n=1,499). Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) vs. Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was evaluated on sustained VT/VF (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52-1.03, p=0.07). Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator reduced the overall risk of sustained VT/VF compared to ICD alone (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.52-1.03; P=0.07), with significant benefit emerging after 6 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: