AdaptivCRT pacing significantly reduced the incidence of atrial fibrillation episodes >48 hours compared to conventional CRT (8.7% vs 16.2%; HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.31-0.93; P=.03).
RCT
2:1
Does the AdaptivCRT algorithm reduce the incidence of atrial fibrillation in CRT-D-indicated heart failure patients compared to conventional CRT?
Continuous optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy using the AdaptivCRT algorithm significantly reduces the incidence of atrial fibrillation compared to conventional CRT in heart failure patients.
Effect estimate: HR 0.54 (95% CI 0.31-0.93)
Absolute Event Rate: 8.7% vs 16.2%
p-value: p=.03
BackgroundData from randomized trials have suggested a modest or no effect of conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (convCRT) on the incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF). AdaptivCRT (aCRT, Medtronic, Mounds View, MN) is a recently described algorithm for synchronized left ventricular (LV) pacing and continuous optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).ObjectiveWe compared the long-term effects of aCRT with convCRT pacing on the incidence of AF.MethodsThe Adaptive CRT trial randomized CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D)–indicated patients (2:1) to receive either aCRT or convCRT pacing. The aCRT algorithm evaluates intrinsic conduction every minute, providing LV-only pacing during normal atrioventricular (AV) conduction and AV and ventriculoventricular timing adjustments during prolonged AV conduction. The primary outcome of this subanalysis was an episode of AF >48 consecutive hours as detected by device diagnostics.ResultsOver a follow-up period with a mean and standard deviation of 20.2 ± 5.9 months, 8.7% of patients with aCRT and 16.2% with convCRT experienced the primary outcome (hazard ratio HR = 0.54; 95% confidence interval CI = 0.31–0.93; P = .03). In patients with prolonged baseline AV, the incidence of the primary outcome was 12.8% in patients randomized to aCRT compared with 27.4% in convCRT patients (HR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.24–0.85; P = .01). Also, patients with AF episodes adjudicated as clinical adverse events were less common with aCRT (4.3%) than with convCRT (12.7%) (HR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.19–0.79; P = .01).ConclusionPatients receiving aCRT had a reduced risk of AF compared with those receiving convCRT. Most of the reduction in AF occurred in subgroups with prolonged AV conduction at baseline and with significant left atrial reverse remodeling. Data from randomized trials have suggested a modest or no effect of conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (convCRT) on the incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF). AdaptivCRT (aCRT, Medtronic, Mounds View, MN) is a recently described algorithm for synchronized left ventricular (LV) pacing and continuous optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We compared the long-term effects of aCRT with convCRT pacing on the incidence of AF. The Adaptive CRT trial randomized CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D)–indicated patients (2:1) to receive either aCRT or convCRT pacing. The aCRT algorithm evaluates intrinsic conduction every minute, providing LV-only pacing during normal atrioventricular (AV) conduction and AV and ventriculoventricular timing adjustments during prolonged AV conduction. The primary outcome of this subanalysis was an episode of AF >48 consecutive hours as detected by device diagnostics. Over a follow-up period with a mean and standard deviation of 20.2 ± 5.9 months, 8.7% of patients with aCRT and 16.2% with convCRT experienced the primary outcome (hazard ratio HR = 0.54; 95% confidence interval CI = 0.31–0.93; P = .03). In patients with prolonged baseline AV, the incidence of the primary outcome was 12.8% in patients randomized to aCRT compared with 27.4% in convCRT patients (HR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.24–0.85; P = .01). Also, patients with AF episodes adjudicated as clinical adverse events were less common with aCRT (4.3%) than with convCRT (12.7%) (HR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.19–0.79; P = .01). Patients receiving aCRT had a reduced risk of AF compared with those receiving convCRT. Most of the reduction in AF occurred in subgroups with prolonged AV conduction at baseline and with significant left atrial reverse remodeling.
Birnie et al. (Fri,) conducted a rct in Heart failure with CRT-D indication. AdaptivCRT (aCRT) pacing vs. Conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (convCRT) pacing was evaluated on Episode of AF >48 consecutive hours as detected by device diagnostics (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.93, p=.03). AdaptivCRT pacing significantly reduced the incidence of atrial fibrillation episodes >48 hours compared to conventional CRT (8.7% vs 16.2%; HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.31-0.93; P=.03).