Key result
Two-lead CRT-DX is linked to ~8% higher complication-free survival than standard three-lead CRT-D.
Why the study?
To compare complication rates and CRT response between patients implanted with a novel two-lead CRT-DX system and those implanted with a standard three-lead CRT-D system.
Does a two-lead CRT-DX system improve complication-free survival compared to a standard three-lead CRT-D system in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Cohort (n=240)
Does a two-lead CRT-DX system improve complication-free survival compared to a standard three-lead CRT-D system in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy?
A two-lead CRT-DX system provides similar clinical responses with significantly fewer complications and inappropriate shocks compared to a conventional three-lead CRT-D system.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support two-lead CRT-DX to reduce complications in CRT candidates; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
INTRODUCTION: The novel two-lead cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-DX system utilizes a floating atrial dipole on the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead, and when implanted with a left ventricular (LV) lead, offers a two-lead CRT system with AV synchrony. This study compared complication rates and CRT response among subjects implanted with a two-lead CRT-DX system to those subjects implanted with a standard three-lead CRT-D system. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 240 subjects from the Sentus QP-Extended CRT Evaluation with Quadripolar Left Ventricular Leads postapproval study were selected to identify 120 matched pairs based on similar demographic characteristics using a Greedy algorithm. The complication-free rate was evaluated as the primary endpoint. All-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, device diagnostic data, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class improvement, and defibrillator therapy were evaluated from clinical data, in-office interrogations, and remote monitoring throughout the follow-up period. Complication-free survival favored the CRT-DX group with 92.5% without a major complication compared to 85.0% in the CRT-D cohort (P = .0495; 95% confidence interval: 0.1%-14.9%) over a mean follow-up of 1.3 and 1.4 years, respectively. Incidence of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, NYHA changes at 6 months postimplant, and percent of LV pacing during CRT therapy were similar in both device cohorts. Inappropriate shocks were more frequent in the CRT-D cohort with 5.8% of subjects receiving an inappropriate shock vs 0.8% in the CRT-DX cohort. CONCLUSION: The results of this subanalysis demonstrate that the CRT-DX system can provide similar CRT responses and significantly fewer complications when compared to a similar cohort with a conventional three-lead CRT-D system.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shaik et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Heart failure requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=240). Two-lead CRT-DX system vs. Standard three-lead CRT-D system was evaluated on Complication-free rate (95% CI 0.1-14.9, p=0.0495). The two-lead CRT-DX system resulted in a higher complication-free survival rate compared to a standard three-lead CRT-D system.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: