Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Nov 1;20(11):1804-1812.
doi: 10.1093/europace/eux357.

Long-term clinical outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without defibrillation: impact of the aetiology of cardiomyopathy

Francisco Leyva  1 , Abbasin Zegard  1 , Fraz Umar  2 , Robin James Taylor  2 , Edmund Acquaye  3 , Christopher Gubran  3 , Shajil Chalil  2 , Kiran Patel  4   5 , Jonathan Panting  4 , Howard Marshall  3 , Tian Qiu  3
Affiliations

Long-term clinical outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without defibrillation: impact of the aetiology of cardiomyopathy

Francisco Leyva et al. Europace. .

Abstract

Aims: There is a continuing debate as to whether cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillation (CRT-D) is superior to CRT-pacing (CRT-P), particularly in patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICM). We sought to quantify the clinical outcomes after primary prevention of CRT-D and CRT-P and identify whether these differed according to the aetiology of cardiomyopathy.

Methods and results: Analyses were undertaken in the total study population of patients treated with CRT-D (n = 551) or CRT-P (n = 999) and in propensity-matched samples. Device choice was governed by the clinical guidelines in the United Kingdom. In univariable analyses of the total study population, for a maximum follow-up of 16 years (median 4.7 years, interquartile range 2.4-7.1), CRT-D was associated with a lower total mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72] and the composite endpoints of total mortality or heart failure (HF) hospitalization (HR 0.72) and total mortality or hospitalization for major adverse cardiac events (MACE; HR 0.71) (all P < 0.001). After propensity matching (n = 796), CRT-D was associated with a lower total mortality (HR 0.72) and the composite endpoints (all P < 0.01). When further stratified according to aetiology, CRT-D was associated with a lower total mortality (HR 0.62), total mortality or HF hospitalization (HR 0.63), and total mortality or hospitalization for MACE (HR 0.59) (all P < 0.001) in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). There were no differences in outcomes between CRT-D and CRT-P in patients with NICM.

Conclusion: In this study of real-world clinical practice, CRT-D was superior to CRT-P with respect to total mortality and composite endpoints, independent of known confounders. The benefit of CRT-D was evident in ICM but not in NICM.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Primary and secondary endpoints according to the device type. The Kaplan–Meier survival curves for clinical outcomes according to the device type in the total patient population. CRT-D, cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillation; CRT-P, cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacing; HF, heart failure; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Ancillary endpoints according to the device type. The Kaplan–Meier survival curves for clinical outcomes according to the device type in the total patient population. CRT-D, cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillation; CRT-P, cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacing; HF, heart failure; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events; SCD, sudden cardiac death; VF, ventricular fibrillation; VT, ventricular tachycardia.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Primary and secondary endpoints according to the aetiology of cardiomyopathy in propensity-matched samples. The Kaplan–Meier survival curves for primary endpoints according to the device type and aetiology of cardiomyopathy. CRT-D, cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillation; CRT-P, cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacing; HF, heart failure; ICM, ischaemic cardiomyopathy; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events; NICM, non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Survival curves according to the device type and the aetiology of cardiomyopathy. The Kaplan–Meier survival curves for clinical outcomes according to the device type and aetiology. CRT-D, cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillation; CRT-P, cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacing; HF, heart failure; ICM, ischaemic cardiomyopathy; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events; NICM, non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Leyva F, Nisam S, Auricchio A.. 20 years of cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:1047–58. - PubMed
    1. Cleland JG, Daubert JC, Erdmann E, Freemantle N, Gras D, Kappenberger L. et al. Longer-term effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy on mortality in heart failure [the CArdiac REsynchronization-Heart Failure (CARE-HF) trial extension phase]. Eur Heart J 2006;27:1928–32. - PubMed
    1. Colquitt J, Mendes D, Clegg A, Harris P, Cooper K, Picot J. et al. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators for the treatment of arrhythmias and cardiac resynchronisation therapy for the treatment of heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2014;18:1. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lindvall C, Chatterjee NA, Chang Y, Chernack B, Jackson VA, Singh JP. et al. National trends in the use of cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Circulation 2016;133:273–81. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cunningham D, Charles R, Cunningham M, Whittaker T.. Cardiac Rhythm Management UK National Clinical Audit Report 2013-2014. London: National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research; 2013.

MeSH terms