Cardiac resynchronisation therapy upgrade procedures showed similar clinical response (60.5% vs 62.5%; p=0.793) and long-term mortality (33.0% vs 28.8%; p=0.447) compared to de novo implantation.
Cohort (n=410)
Does CRT upgrade provide similar clinical and mortality outcomes compared to de novo CRT implantation in patients with heart failure?
CRT upgrade procedures offer similar symptomatic improvements and long-term mortality outcomes compared to de novo CRT implantations, despite upgrade patients being older and having more comorbidities.
Absolute Event Rate: 60.5% vs 62.5%
p-value: p=0.793
Background The benefit of de novo cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) implantation in selected patients with heart failure is well known. The number of upgrade procedures is increasing but data on clinical response and outcome are less well documented as compared to de novo implantation.Objectives To investigate the efficacy and outcome of CRT upgrade procedures in patients with existing cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs).Methods Baseline characteristics, change in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, echocardiographic parameters, life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias, all-cause mortality and mode of death were evaluated in CRT patients with the comparison between de novo and upgrade CRT procedures.Results About 410 patients (CRT upgrade/de novo CRT, n = 97/313) were followed for 63.5 ± 38.1 months. Upgrade patients were older (75.5 ± 8.1 vs 69.9 ± 10.7 years; p < 0.001), had more often an ischaemic cause of heart failure (58.8% vs 45.4%; p = 0.021), a higher NYHA functional class (p = 0.004) and a higher comorbidity burden. Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was higher in the de novo CRT group (8.4 ± 9.9 vs 11.0 ± 10.3%; p = 0.035). Clinical response was similar between both groups (60.5 vs 62.5%; p = 0.793), as was mortality at 1 year (8.2 vs 5.8%; p = 0.351) and at last follow-up (33.0 vs 28.8%; p = 0.447). The proportion of cardiovascular related deaths was similar between both groups (46.9% vs 38.9%; p = 0.531).Conclusions Patients with CRT upgrade procedures have similar symptomatic improvements, as well as 1 year and long-term outcome as compared to patients with de novo CRT implantation.
Stassen et al. (Tue,) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=410). Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) upgrade vs. De novo CRT implantation was evaluated on Clinical response (p=0.793). Cardiac resynchronisation therapy upgrade procedures showed similar clinical response (60.5% vs 62.5%; p=0.793) and long-term mortality (33.0% vs 28.8%; p=0.447) compared to de novo implantation.