Baseline Right Ventricular Dysfunction Predicts Worse Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Implantation.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been shown to improve survival in patients with systolic heart failure, wide QRS duration, and left-bundle-branch-block. However, CRT outcomes stratified by right ventricular (RV) function at implant have not been well studied. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients at Cleveland Clinic who underwent CRT implantation (n = 777) from 2003 to 2011 with a diagnosis of heart failure, echocardiography with both pre-CRT left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% and available post-CRT echocardiography at 6 months post-implant. CRT response was defined as LVEF improvement ≥5%. Patients were separated into 2 groups: normal or mild RV dysfunction (n = 570) labeled Normal RV; moderate to severe dysfunction (n = 207) labeled RV DYSFXN based on qualitative echocardiography assessment. Survival was calculated as time from CRT implant to death, left ventricular assist device implant, or heart transplant. RESULTS: CRT response was significantly higher in patients with Normal RV (67%) compared with patients with RV DYSFXN (56%; P = .006). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that CRT patients with Normal RV had significantly greater survival compared with patients with RV DYSFXN (P < .001). In multivariable Cox regression accounting for a priori covariates, RV DYSFXN was associated with worse survival (HR 1.41 [95% CI: 1.14-1.75], P = .002) and lower CRT response (HR 0.66 [95% CI: 0.44-0.97], P = .03). CONCLUSION: Baseline RV dysfunction at CRT implant is an important predictor of worsened left ventricular remodeling and survival in CRT patients.

Long term outcomes in patients with chronic right ventricular pacing upgraded to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with chronic systolic heart failure and frequent right ventricular pacing (RVP), upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has become common practice despite a lack of randomized clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate long term outcomes in patients upgraded to CRT from chronic RVP compared with de novo CRT implants. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed medical charts on consecutive patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% and a QRSd ≥ 120 ms undergoing CRT. Survival free of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and a heart transplant was compared amongst patients on the basis of pre-CRT QRS morphology. Improvement in LVEF was also compared across groups. A total of 1260 patients met inclusion criteria of whom 233 were upgraded from chronic RVP. Over a mean follow up 6.5 ± 4.0 years there were 821 endpoints (27 LVAD, 30 heart transplants, and 764 deaths). In a multivariate Cox regression model, upgraded patients had worse outcomes (HR 1.3(1.1-1.7) P = .007) compared with those with native LBBB and similar outcomes to patients with non-LBBB(HR 0.96(0.76-1.21) P = .7). The survival curve for chronic RVP parallels native LBBB for approximately 2.5 years before dropping sharply. Patients with chronic RVP derive similar improvements in LVEF compared with those with LBBB and superior improvements compared with those with non-LBBB. CONCLUSIONS: Despite achieving similar levels of LVEF improvement, patients with systolic heart failure with chronic RVP undergoing upgrade to CRT have inferior long term outcomes compared with patients with native LBBB. Long term outcomes with CRT in patients with chronic RVP, RBBB, and IVCD are similar.