Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation: importance of new-onset atrial fibrillation and total atrial conduction time
Key result
CRT yields comparable response rates in AF versus sinus rhythm.
- n=114
Why the study?
The value of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation remains unclear, and predictors of CRT response may differ between AF and sinus rhythm patients.
Population
114 heart failure patients receiving CRT, including 56 with current or earlier AF and 58 without AF
Comparison
Patients with AF versus patients with sinus rhythm regarding CRT response
Design
Prospective cohort study
Follow-up
6 months
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
New-onset AF was associated with CRT non-response; leaves open whether rhythm control strategies improve outcomes in this population.
Study Design
Type
Cohort (n=114)
PICO
P
Population
114 consecutive patients with heart failure undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy, including 56 with current or earlier atrial fibrillation, followed for 6 months.
E
Exposure / Comparator
Atrial fibrillation (current) vs Sinus rhythm
O
Primary Outcome
Response to CRT (decrease in left ventricular end-systolic volume of ≥10% after 6 months)
Main Result
Absolute Event Rate: 56% vs 55%
Cite This Study
Buck et al. (2008) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=114). Atrial fibrillation (current) vs. Sinus rhythm was evaluated on Response to CRT (decrease in left ventricular end-systolic volume of ≥10% after 6 months). CRT response was comparable between patients with current atrial fibrillation and sinus rhythm (56% vs 55%); shorter total atrial conduction time predicted response in AF (OR 16.7, P=0.02).