Left ventricular dimensions predict risk of appropriate shocks but not mortality in cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator recipients with left bundle-branch block and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy
Open Access
- 17 November 2016
- journal article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in EP Europace
- Vol. 19 (10) , 1689-1694
Abstract
Patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) and left bundle-branch block (LBBB) often benefit markedly from cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Cardiac resynchronization therapy responders have a lower risk of appropriate device shocks from CRT-defibrillators (CRT-D) than do non-responders. Larger baseline left ventricular (LV) dimensions may be associated with less CRT response and thus greater risk of appropriate shocks. We analysed all (n = 249; 55% female) primary prevention CRT-D recipients at our institution with LBBB, NICM, and measured LV dimensions prior to device implant for the outcomes of (i) appropriate shocks, (ii) any appropriate tachyarrhythmia therapies, and (iii) risk of death, transplant, or left ventricular assist device (LVAD). During 59 months (interquartile range 21.5–91.5) follow-up, 19 (8%) patients received ≥1 appropriate shock, and 67 (27%) patients died, received a transplant, or required LVAD. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis of LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) per meter height vs. appropriate shock(s) revealed an area under the curve of 0.75 (95% CI 0.65–0.85; P < 0.001). No patient with indexed LVEDD n = 76) received a shock. There was no statistically significant difference in risk of death, transplant, or LVAD (corrected HR 1.67, 95% CI 0.90–3.03; P = 0.103) in patients with indexed LVEDD above this cut-off compared to those with smaller dimension. Among 102 patients with paired quantitative echocardiograms, there was no difference in LVEF change between patients with indexed LVEDD n = 27; median 11%) and larger (n = 75; median 14%). Patients with LVEDD <3.36 cm/m height prior to CRT-D implant in the setting of NICM and LBBB have minimal risk of appropriate shocks but similar risk of death, transplant- and LVAD and similar extent of LV functional improvement as patients with larger LVEDD. CRT-pacemakers may be appropriate in such patients.Keywords
This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- National Trends in the Use of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With or Without Implantable Cardioverter-DefibrillatorCirculation, 2016
- Recommendations for Cardiac Chamber Quantification by Echocardiography in Adults: An Update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular ImagingEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging, 2015
- Outcomes in pacemaker-dependent patients upgraded from conventional pacemakers to cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillatorsHeart Rhythm, 2014
- Class I recall of defibrillator leads: A comparison of the Sprint Fidelis and Riata familiesHeart Rhythm, 2012
- Effectiveness of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy by QRS Morphology in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial–Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT)Circulation, 2011
- Defining Left Bundle Branch Block in the Era of Cardiac Resynchronization TherapyThe American Journal of Cardiology, 2011
- Impact of scar burden by single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging on patient outcomes following cardiac resynchronization therapyEuropean Heart Journal, 2010
- Characteristics of heart failure patients associated with good and poor response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: a PROSPECT (Predictors of Response to CRT) sub-analysisEuropean Heart Journal, 2009
- The Effect of Cardiac Resynchronization on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart FailureNew England Journal of Medicine, 2005
- Cardiac-Resynchronization Therapy with or without an Implantable Defibrillator in Advanced Chronic Heart FailureNew England Journal of Medicine, 2004