A novel use of cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator device in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cay S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6931796 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A novel use of cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator device in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
Cay Serkan S Ozeke Ozcan O Ozcan Firat F Aras Dursun D Topaloglu Serkan S
Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc 20180530 1
Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is generally used in patients with atrioventricular block and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. In the current case, a cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator device was implanted in a patient with non-obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with preserved ejection fraction and atrioventricular block to achieve both more physiological pacing and life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia managem ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) provides significant reduction in morbidity and mortality in select patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and specific parameters of electrocardiographic evidence of dyssynchrony. Relative to the 2012 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society guideline update for patient selection, little is known about the contemporary use of CRT in the United States.ObjectiveTo describe the use of CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) in the period around guideline revision.Design, setting, and participantsAll patients undergoing new CRT-D implantations in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2015, at 1710 participating hospitals were identified for this population-based study. Rates of CRT-D implantation that were concordant and discordant with the 2012 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society update of the 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy were determined. Analysis began in January 2012.Main outcomes and measuresIncrease in guideline-concordant CRT-D implantation.ResultsAmong 135 253 patients undergoing initial CRT-D implantation, 88 923 were included in the study cohort, of which 73 859 implants (83.1%) were guideline concordant. The proportion of guideline-concordant devices increased from 81.2% (16 710 of 20 481) in 2012 to 84.2% (20 515 of 24 356) in 2015 (P for trend < .001). Significant clustering was noted with 33% (565 of 1710) of hospitals accounting for greater than 70% (10 545 of 15 065) of guideline-discordant CRT-D implants. Conduction abnormalities, in particular, underlying right bundle branch block (3597 [23.9%] vs 7425 [10.1%]; P < .001) and nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay (3341 [22.2%] vs 4769 [6.5%]; P < .001) were more common in those who received guideline-discordant devices.Conclusions and relevanceRates of guideline-concordant CRT-D implantation increased during the study. The major fraction of guideline-discordant implants were clustered at a minority of hospitals. Conduction abnormalities, particularly non-left bundle branch block and nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay, correlated with guideline-discordant implants indicating continued opportunity for dissemination and understanding of guideline updates.
| S-EPMC6584888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:The ANZACS-QI Cardiac Implanted Device Registry (ANZACS-QI DEVICE) collects nationwide data on cardiac implantable electronic devices in New Zealand (NZ). We used the registry to describe contemporary NZ use of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods:All ICD and CRT Pacemaker implants recorded in ANZACS-QI DEVICE between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2017 were analyzed. Results:Of 1579 ICD implants, 1152 (73.0%) were new implants, including 49.0% for primary prevention and 51.0% for secondary prevention. In both groups, median age was 62 years and patients were predominantly male (81.4% and 79.2%, respectively). Most patients receiving a primary prevention ICD had a history of clinical heart failure (80.4%), NYHA class II-III symptoms (77.1%) and LVEF ?35% (96.9%). In the secondary prevention ICD cohort, 88.4% were for sustained ventricular tachycardia or survived cardiac arrest from ventricular arrhythmia. Compared to primary prevention CRT Defibrillators (n = 155), those receiving CRT Pacemakers (n = 175) were older (median age 74 vs 66 years) and more likely to be female (38.3% vs 19.4%). Of the 427 (27.0%) ICD replacements (mean duration 6.3 years), 46.6% had received appropriate device therapy while 17.8% received inappropriate therapy. The ICD implant rate was 119 per million population with regional variation in implant rates, ratio of primary prevention ICD implants, and selection of CRT modality. Conclusion:In contemporary NZ practice three-quarters of ICD implants were new implants, of which half were for primary prevention. The majority met current guideline indications. Patients receiving CRT pacemaker were older and more likely to be female.
| S-EPMC7011834 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCandidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) receive either a biventricular pacemaker or a biventricular pacemaker with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (CRT-D). Optimal device selection remains challenging because the benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy may not be uniform, particularly in patients at competing risk of nonsudden death.Methods and resultsIn this serial cross-sectional study using the National Inpatient Sample database, we identified 311,086 admissions associated with CRT implant between 2006 to 2012. CRT-D was the most common device type (86.1%), including in patients ≥ 75 years of age with ≥ 5 Elixhauser comorbidities (75.5%). Multivariate predictors of CRT-D implant included demographic, clinical, and geographic factors: prior ventricular arrhythmia (rate ratio [RR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.13-1.14), ischemic heart disease (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.10-1.11), male sex (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.09-1.10), black race (RR, 1.06; 95% CI: 1.04-1.07), and Northeast geographic region (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.09). There was significant interhospital variation in the use of CRT-D (10-90 percentile range, 72.9%-98.0% CRT-D).ConclusionsThe majority of patients in this contemporary US cohort underwent implantation of CRT-D. Predictors of CRT-D implant included demographic, clinical, and geographic factors. In patient subgroups predicted to have an attenuated benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy (older adults with multiple comorbidities), CRT-D remained the dominant device type. An improved understanding of the determinants of device selection may aid in decision making and ultimately better align patient risk with device benefit at the time of CRT implantation.
| S-EPMC5259807 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsPrevious studies have identified sex disparities in the use of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD), although the basis of underutilization in women remains poorly understood. The aim of this study was to assess sex differences in patterns of CRT use with our without ICD.Methods and resultsIn this cross-sectional study using the National Inpatient Sample database we identified 311 009 patients undergoing CRT implantation in the United States between 2006 and 2012. Demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between men and women undergoing CRT implantation, with special attention to clinical predictors of left ventricular reverse remodelling (CRT response, score range: 0-4) and reduced ICD efficacy (score range: 0-7). When compared to men, women undergoing CRT implantation were significantly more likely to have???3 predictors of CRT response (47.3 vs. 33.2%, P?<?0.001) and less likely to have??3 predictors of reduced ICD efficacy (27.0 vs. 37.3%, P?<?0.001). Despite this, men were significantly more likely to undergo CRT with ICD (CRT-D) as the type of CRT (88.6 vs. 80.1% of all CRT implants). Compared to those with the greatest likelihood of CRT response (score???3), those with the least likelihood of CRT response had a significant decreased odds of CRT-D implant (adj odds ratio 0.27 [0.24-0.31], P?<?0.001), with a greater decreased odds in women compared to men (P, for sex interaction?<0.001). The difference in the % of CRT-D implant in men vs. women increased over the study period (P, sex ? time trend?=?0.012).ConclusionIn this large, contemporary cohort, sex differences in CRT-D implantation were inversely related to predicted CRT efficacy and have increased over time. Future efforts to narrow the gap in CRT-D implantation in men and women may help better align device selection with those most likely to benefit.
| S-EPMC5837710 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with heart failure having a low expected probability of arrhythmic death may not benefit from implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs).ObjectiveThe objective was to validate models to identify cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) candidates who may not require CRT devices with ICD functionality.MethodsHeart failure (HF) patients with CRT-Ds and non-CRT ICDs from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry and others with no device from 3 separate registries and 3 heart failure trials were analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression for survival with the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM; estimates overall mortality) and the Seattle Proportional Risk Model (SPRM; estimates proportional risk of arrhythmic death).ResultsAmong 60,185 patients (age 68.6 ± 11.3 years, 31.9% female) meeting CRT-D criteria, 38,348 had CRT-Ds, 11,389 had non-CRT ICDs, and 10,448 had no device. CRT-D patients had a prominent adjusted survival benefit (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.50-0.55, P < .0001 versus no device). CRT-D patients with SHFM-predicted 4-year survival ≥81% (median) and a low SPRM-predicted probability of an arrhythmic mode of death ≤42% (median) had an absolute adjusted risk reduction attributable to ICD functionality of just 0.95%/year with the majority of survival benefit (70%) attributable to CRT pacing. In contrast, CRT-D patients with SHFM-predicted survival <median or SPRM >median had substantially more ICD-attributable benefit (absolute risk reduction of 2.6%/year combined; P < .0001).ConclusionsThe SPRM and SHFM identified a quarter of real-world, primary prevention CRT-D patients with minimal benefit from ICD functionality. Further studies to evaluate CRT pacemakers in these low-risk CRT candidates are indicated.
| S-EPMC7814502 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10848589 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsRandomized data on the efficacy/safety of cardiac resynchronization therapy with vs. without defibrillator (CRT-D,-P) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are scarce. We aimed to evaluate survival associated with use of CRT-D vs. CRT-P in a contemporary cohort with HFrEF.Methods and resultsPatients from Swedish HF Registry treated with CRT-D/CRT-P and fulfilling criteria for primary prevention defibrillator use were included. Logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of CRT-D non-use. All-cause mortality was compared in CRT-D vs. CRT-P by Cox regression in a 1 : 1 propensity-score-matched cohort. Of 1988 patients with CRT, 1108 (56%) had CRT-D and 880 (44%) CRT-P. Older age, higher ejection fraction (EF), female sex, and the lack of referral to HF nurse-led outpatient clinic were major determinants of CRT-D non-use. After matching, 645 CRT-D patients were compared with 645 with CRT-P. The CRT-D use was associated with lower 1- and 3-year all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR):0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI):0.58-0.98; HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68-0.99, respectively]. Results were consistent in all pre-specified subgroups except for CRT-D use being associated with lower 3-year mortality in patients with an EF < 30% but not in those with an EF ≥ 30% (HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.59-0.89 and HR: 1.24, 95% CI: 0.83-1.85, respectively; P-interaction = 0.02).ConclusionIn a contemporary HFrEF cohort, CRT-D was associated with lower mortality compared with CRT-P. The CRT-D use was less likely in older patients, females, and in patients not referred to HF nurse-led outpatient clinic. Our findings support the use of CRT-D vs. CRT-P in HFrEF, in particular with severely reduced EF.
| S-EPMC8742627 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsCardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy is fundamental to the management of LMNA cardiomyopathy due to the high frequency of atrioventricular block and ventricular tachyarrhythmias. We aimed to define the role of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in impacting heart failure in LMNA cardiomyopathy.Methods and resultsFrom nine referral centres, LMNA cardiomyopathy patients who underwent CRT with available pre- and post-echocardiograms were identified retrospectively. Factors associated with CRT response were identified (defined as improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≥5% 6 months post-implant) and the associated impact on the primary outcome of death, implantation of a left ventricular assist device or cardiac transplantation was assessed. We identified 105 patients (mean age 51 ± 10 years) undergoing CRT, including 70 (67%) who underwent CRT as a CIED upgrade. The mean change in LVEF ∼6 months post-CRT was +4 ± 9%. A CRT response occurred in 40 (38%) patients and was associated with lower baseline LVEF or a high percentage of right ventricular pacing prior to CRT in patients with pre-existing CIED. In patients with a European Society of Cardiology class I guideline indication for CRT, response rates were 61%. A CRT response was evident at thresholds of LVEF ≤45% or percent pacing ≥50%. There was a 1.3 year estimated median difference in event-free survival in those who responded to CRT (p = 0.04).ConclusionSystolic function improves in patients with LMNA cardiomyopathy who undergo CRT, especially with strong guideline indications for implantation. Post-CRT improvements in LVEF are associated with survival benefits in this population with otherwise limited options.
| S-EPMC9106891 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is a cardiac arrhythmia frequently documented in patients requiring implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and/or cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D). Patients with diagnosed AF at the point of ICD or CRT-D implantation may have an impaired follow-up outcome.MethodsThe German DEVICE I-II registry is a nationwide prospective multicentre database of patients implanted with ICD and CRT-D with clinical follow-up data. We analysed a 1-year follow up of implanted patients with AF and with sinus rhythm (SR).ResultsA total of 4,929 ICD/CRT patients are included in the present analysis: 946 (19.2%) were in AF and 3,983 (80.8%) were SR at time of device implantation. AF patients had a significantly more comorbid profile including older age {72 [interquartile range (IQR), 66-77] vs. 66 (IQR, 56-73) years; P<0.001}, and higher rate of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <30% (68.2% vs. 61.0%; P<0.001), peripheral artery disease (4.5% vs. 2.7%; P=0.002), diabetes (33.6% vs. 25.5%; P<0.001), hypertension (58.4% vs. 51.1%; P<0.001) and renal failure (22.6% vs. 15.3%; P<0.001). The intra-hospital complication rate was 4.3% in the AF and 3.6% in the SR group (P=0.38). In 1-year follow-up AF patients experienced a significantly higher rate of defibrillator shocks (25% vs. 15.3%; P<0.001). One-year estimated mortality was 10.8% in the AF and 5.9% in the SR group (P<0.001), while estimated 1-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) rate was 11.2% vs. 7.0% (P<0.001). The effects of AF on electrical shocks and mortality persisted after adjusting for age, sex, advanced New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, severely impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), coronary artery disease (CAD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic renal failure (CRF), QRS duration, and type of indication for electronic device implantation.ConclusionsOur clinical data on an extended cohort of contemporary patients confirm the significant impact of AF, and its associated comorbidities, upon mortality and major adverse events after implantation of ICD/CRT.
| S-EPMC11009579 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsPrior studies have suggested that the benefit from primary preventive defibrillator treatment for patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathyy, treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy, may be age-dependent. We aimed to compare age-stratified mortality rates and mode of death in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy who are treated with either primary preventive cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) or CRT with pacemaker (CRT-P).Methods and resultsAll patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and CRT-P or primary preventive CRT-D who were implanted in Sweden during the period 2005-2020 were included. Propensity scoring was used to create a matched cohort. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 5 years. In all, 4027 patients were included: 2334 with CRT-P and 1693 with CRT-D. Crude 5-year mortality was 635 (27%) vs. 246 (15%), P < 0.001. In Cox regression analysis, adjusted for clinically relevant covariables, CRT-D was independently associated with higher 5-year survival [0.72 (0.61-0.85), P < 0.001]. Cardiovascular mortality was similar between groups (62 vs. 64%, P = 0.64), but death from heart failure was more common in the CRT-D group (46 vs. 36%, P = 0.007). In the matched cohort (n = 2414), 5-year mortality was 21% (24 vs. 16%, P < 0.001). In age-stratified analyses, CRT-P was associated with higher mortality in age groups <60 years and 70-79 years, but there was no difference in age groups 60-69 years or 80-89 years.ConclusionIn this nationwide registry-based study, patients with CRT-D had better 5-year survival compared to patients with CRT-P. The interaction between age and mortality reduction was not consistent, but patients with CRT-D aged <60 years had the largest absolute mortality reduction.
| S-EPMC10368447 | biostudies-literature