The prevalence of frailty and its effect on the outcome in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients.

Frailty is a complex clinical syndrome associated with aging and comorbidities, which correlates with unfavorable outcomes. However, in heart failure patients, frailty is very common, data is scarce about those, who are eligible for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) implantation. We investigated the incidence of frailty and the association of Frailty Index (FI) with the outcome. Thirty baseline clinical parameters were used by the Rockwood cumulative deficit method to determine patients' FI in our single-center cohort. Based on previous studies, patients with FI ≤ 0.210 were considered as non-frail, those with FI 0.10-0.210 were classified in Frail-1, with FI > 0.10 in Frail-2 groups, respectively. Echocardiographic response after 12 months and all-cause mortality were investigated by frailty groups. Among 1004 included patients, 75 (7%) were considered Non-frail, 271 (27%) grouped in Frail-1, and 658 (66%) in Frail-2 with a median FI of 0.36 (0.28-0.43). Patients in Frail-2 group were older, with more comorbidities compared with non-frail patients or those in Group Frail-1. During the median follow-up time of 4.8 years, 29 (39%) patients died in the Non-frail, 140 (52%) in Frail-1, and 471 (72%) in the Frail-2 groups (log-rank p < 0.001). Group Frail-2 showed an unfavorable outcome compared to the non-frail (HR 2.49, 95%CI 1.92-3.22; p < 0.001) and the Frail-1 group (1.83, 95%CI 1.55-2.16; p < 0.001). In our HFrEF patients eligible for CRT implantation, patients were exceedingly vulnerable with a high prevalence of frailty. The calculated frailty index was associated with outcome and proved to be prevalent in individual risk stratification.

Phenogrouping and risk stratification of patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrade using topological data analysis.

Choosing the optimal device during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) upgrade can be challenging. Therefore, we sought to provide a solution for identifying patients in whom upgrading to a CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) is associated with better long-term survival than upgrading to a CRT-pacemaker (CRT-P). To this end, we first applied topological data analysis to create a patient similarity network using 16 clinical features of 326 patients without prior ventricular arrhythmias who underwent CRT upgrade. Then, in the generated circular network, we delineated three phenogroups exhibiting significant differences in clinical characteristics and risk of all-cause mortality. Importantly, only in the high-risk phenogroup was upgrading to a CRT-D associated with better survival than upgrading to a CRT-P (hazard ratio: 0.454 (0.228-0.907), p = 0.025). Finally, we assigned each patient to one of the three phenogroups based on their location in the network and used this labeled data to train multi-class classifiers to enable the risk stratification of new patients. During internal validation, an ensemble of 5 multi-layer perceptrons exhibited the best performance with a balanced accuracy of 0.898 (0.854-0.942) and a micro-averaged area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.983 (0.980-0.986). To allow further validation, we made the proposed model publicly available ( https://github.com/tokmarton/crt-upgrade-risk-stratification ).

Time-trend treatment effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without defibrillator on mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: This study aimed to investigate the impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) on mortality, comparing it with CRT with a pacemaker (CRT-P). Additionally, the study sought to identify subgroups, evaluate the time trend in treatment effects, and analyze patient characteristics, considering the changing indications over the past decades. METHODS AND RESULTS: PubMed, CENTRAL, and Embase up to October 2021 were screened for studies comparing CRT-P and CRT-D, focusing on mortality. Altogether 26 observational studies were selected comprising 128 030 CRT patients, including 55 469 with CRT-P and 72 561 with CRT-D device. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator was able to reduce all-cause mortality by almost 20% over CRT-P [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76-0.94; P < 0.01] even in propensity-matched studies (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.80-0.87; P < 0.001) but not in those with non-ischaemic aetiology (HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.79-1.15; P = 0.19) or over 75 years (HR: 1.08; 95% CI 0.96-1.21; P = 0.17). When treatment effect on mortality was investigated by the median year of inclusion, there was a difference between studies released before 2015 and those thereafter. Time-trend effects could be also observed in patients' characteristics: CRT-P candidates were getting older and the prevalence of ischaemic aetiology was increasing over time. CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review of observational studies, mostly retrospective with meta-analysis, suggest that patients with CRT-D had a lower risk of mortality compared with CRT-P. However, subgroups could be identified, where CRT-D was not superior such as non-ischaemic and older patients. An improved treatment effect of CRT-D on mortality could be observed between the early and late studies partly related to the changed characteristics of CRT candidates.

Topological data analysis to identify cardiac resynchronization therapy patients exhibiting benefit from an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend considering multiple factors while deciding between cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) or a pacemaker (CRT-P). Nevertheless, it is still challenging to pinpoint those candidates who will benefit from choosing a CRT-D device in terms of survival. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to use topological data analysis (TDA) to identify phenogroups of CRT patients in whom CRT-D is associated with better survival than CRT-P. METHODS: We included 2603 patients who underwent CRT-D (54%) or CRT-P (46%) implantation at Semmelweis University between 2000 and 2018. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. We applied TDA to create a patient similarity network using 25 clinical features. Then, we identified multiple phenogroups in the generated network and compared the groups' clinical characteristics and survival. RESULTS: Five- and 10-year mortality were 43 (40-46)% and 71 (67-74)% in patients with CRT-D and 48 (45-50)% and 71 (68-74)% in those with CRT-P, respectively. TDA created a circular network in which we could delineate five phenogroups showing distinct patterns of clinical characteristics and outcomes. Three phenogroups (1, 2, and 3) included almost exclusively patients with non-ischemic etiology, whereas the other two phenogroups (4 and 5) predominantly comprised ischemic patients. Interestingly, only in phenogroups 2 and 5 were CRT-D associated with better survival than CRT-P (adjusted hazard ratio 0.61 [0.47-0.80], p < 0.001 and adjusted hazard ratio 0.84 [0.71-0.99], p = 0.033, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: By simultaneously evaluating various clinical features, TDA may identify patients with either ischemic or non-ischemic etiology who will most likely benefit from the implantation of a CRT-D instead of a CRT-P. Topological data analysis to identify phenogroups of CRT patients in whom CRT-D is associated with better survival than CRT-P. AF atrial fibrillation, CRT cardiac resynchronization therapy, CRT-D cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator, CRT-P cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker, DM diabetes mellitus, HTN hypertension, LBBB left bundle branch block, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, MDS multidimensional scaling, MRA mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, NYHA New York Heart Association.

There is more than just longitudinal strain: Prognostic significance of biventricular circumferential mechanics.

Introduction: Despite the significant contribution of circumferential shortening to the global ventricular function, data are scarce concerning its prognostic value on long-term mortality. Accordingly, our study aimed to assess both left (LV) and right ventricular (RV) global longitudinal (GLS) and global circumferential strain (GCS) using three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) to determine their prognostic importance. Methods: Three hundred fifty-seven patients with a wide variety of left-sided cardiac diseases were retrospectively identified (64 ± 15 years, 70% males) who underwent clinically indicated 3DE. LV and RV GLS, and GCS were quantified. To determine the prognostic power of the different patterns of biventricular mechanics, we divided the patient population into four groups. Group 1 consisted of patients with both LV GLS and RV GCS above the respective median values; Group 2 was defined as patients with LV GLS below the median while RV GCS above the median, whereas in Group 3, patients had LV GLS values above the median, while RV GCS was below median. Group 4 was defined as patients with both LV GLS and RV GCS below the median. Patients were followed up for a median of 41 months. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Results: Fifty-five patients (15%) met the primary endpoint. Impaired values of both LV GCS (HR, 1.056 [95% CI, 1.027-1.085], p < 0.001) and RV GCS (1.115 [1.068-1.164], p < 0.001) were associated with increased risk of death by univariable Cox regression. Patients with both LV GLS and RV GCS below the median (Group 4) had a more than 5-fold increased risk of death compared with those in Group 1 (5.089 [2.399-10.793], p < 0.001) and more than 3.5-fold compared with those in Group 2 (3.565 [1.256-10.122], p = 0.017). Interestingly, there was no significant difference in mortality between Group 3 (with LV GLS above the median) and Group 4, but being categorized into Group 3 versus Group 1 still held a more than 3-fold risk (3.099 [1.284-7.484], p = 0.012). Discussion: The impaired values of both LV and RV GCS are associated with long-term all-cause mortality, emphasizing the importance of assessing biventricular circumferential mechanics. Reduced RV GCS is associated with significantly increased risk of mortality even if LV GLS is preserved.

Long-term outcome of cardiac resynchronization therapy patients in the elderly.

Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of mortality and hospitalization in the elderly. However, data are scarce about their response to device treatment such as cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to evaluate the age-related differences in the effectiveness of CRT, procedure-related complications, and long-term outcome. Between 2000 and 2020, 2656 patients undergoing CRT implantation were registered and analyzed retrospectively. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to their age: group I, < 65; group II, 65-75; and group III, > 75 years. The primary endpoint was the echocardiographic response defined as a relative increase > 15% in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) within 6 months, and the secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, heart transplantation, or left ventricular assist device implantation. Procedure-related complications were also assessed. After implantation, LVEF showed significant improvement both in the total cohort [28% (IQR 24/33) vs. 35% (IQR 28/40); p < 0.01)] and in each subgroup (27% vs. 34%; p < 0.01, 29% vs. 35%; p < 0.01, 30% vs. 35%; p < 0.01). Response rate was similar in the 3 groups (64% vs. 62% vs. 56%; p = 0.41). During the follow-up, 1574 (59%) patients died. Kaplan-Meier curves revealed a significantly lower survival rate in the older groups (log-rank p < 0.001). The cumulative complication rates were similar among the three age groups (27% vs. 28% vs. 24%; p = 0.15). Our results demonstrate that CRT is as effective and safe therapy in the elderly as for young ones. The present data suggest that patients with appropriate indications benefit from CRT in the long term, regardless of age.

Baseline clinical characteristics of heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction enrolled in the BUDAPEST-CRT Upgrade trial.

AIMS: The BUDAPEST-CRT Upgrade study is the first prospective, randomized, multicentre clinical trial investigating the outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) upgrade in heart failure (HF) patients with intermittent or permanent right ventricular (RV) pacing with wide paced QRS. This report describes the baseline clinical characteristics of the enrolled patients and compares them to cohorts from previous milestone CRT studies. METHODS AND RESULTS: This international multicentre randomized controlled trial investigates 360 patients having a pacemaker (PM) or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) device for at least 6 months prior to enrolment, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤35%), HF symptoms (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class II-IVa), wide paced QRS (>150 ms), and ≥20% of RV pacing burden without having a native left bundle branch block. At enrolment, the mean age of the patients was 73 ± 8 years; 89% were male, 97% were in NYHA class II/III functional class, and 56% had atrial fibrillation. Enrolled patients predominantly had conventional PM devices, with a mean RV pacing burden of 86%. Thus, this is a patient cohort with advanced HF, low baseline LVEF (25 ± 7%), high N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels (2231 pg/ml [25th-75th percentile 1254-4309 pg/ml]), and frequent HF hospitalizations during the preceding 12 months (50%). CONCLUSION: When compared with prior CRT trial cohorts, the BUDAPEST-CRT Upgrade study includes older patients with a strong male predominance and a high burden of atrial fibrillation and other comorbidities. Moreover, this cohort represents an advanced HF population with low LVEF, high NT-proBNP, and frequent previous HF events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02270840.

The Prognostic Value of Anemia in Patients with Preserved, Mildly Reduced and Recovered Ejection Fraction.

Data on the relevance of anemia in heart failure (HF) patients with an ejection fraction (EF) > 40% by subgroup-preserved (HFpEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and the newly defined recovered EF (HFrecEF)-are scarce. Patients with HF symptoms, elevated NT-proBNP, EF ≥ 40% and structural abnormalities were registered in the HFpEF-HFmrEF database. We described the outcome of our HFpEF-HFmrEF cohort by the presence of anemia. Additionally, HFrecEF patients were also selected from HFrEF patients who underwent resynchronization and, as responders, reached 40% EF. Using propensity score matching (PSM), 75 pairs from the HFpEF-HFmrEF and HFrecEF groups were matched by their clinical features. After PMS, we compared the survival of the HFpEF-HFmrEF and HFrecEF groups. Log-rank, uni-and multivariate regression analyses were performed. From 375 HFpEF-HFmrEF patients, 42 (11%) died during the median follow-up time of 1.4 years. Anemia (HR 2.77; 95%CI 1.47-5.23; p < 0.01) was one of the strongest mortality predictors, which was also confirmed by the multivariate analysis (aHR 2.33; 95%CI 1.21-4.52; p = 0.01). Through PSM, the outcomes for HFpEF-HFmrEF and HFrecEF patients with anemia were poor, exhibiting no significant difference. In HFpEF-HFmrEF, anemia was an independent mortality predictor. Its presence multiplied the mortality risk in those with EF ≥ 40%, regardless of HF etiology.

Predicting the survival benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator function for non-ischemic heart failure-Role of the Goldenberg risk score.

Aims: Primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in non-ischemic heart failure (HF) patients remains a topic of debate at cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation requiring individual risk assessment. Using the Goldenberg SCD risk score, we aimed to predict, which non-ischemic HF patients will benefit from the addition of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) to CRT at long-term. Methods: Between 2000 and 2018 non-ischemic HF patients undergoing CRT implantation were collected into our retrospective registry. The Goldenberg risk score (GRS) was calculated by the presence of atrial fibrillation, New York Heat Association (NYHA) class > 2, age > 70 years, blood urea nitrogen > 26 mg/dl and QRS > 120 ms. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, heart transplantation or left ventricular assist device implantation. Results: From 667 patients, 347 (52%) underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker (CRT-P), 320 (48%) cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) implantations. During the median follow up time of 4.3 years, 306 (46%) patients reached the primary endpoint (CRT-D 37% vs. CRT-P 63%; p < 0.001). CRT-D patients were younger (64 vs. 69 years; p < 0.001), infrequently females (26 vs. 39%; p < 0.001), and had a lower ejection fraction (27 vs. 29%; p < 0.01) compared to CRT-P patients. After GRS calculation, patients were dichotomized by low (< 3) and high (≥ 3) scores. CRT-D patients with low GRS showed a mortality benefit compared to CRT-P (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.48-0.96; p = 0.03), high-risk patients did not (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.62-1.13; p = 0.26). Conclusion: In our non-ischemic cohort, patients with low GRS showed a clear long-term mortality benefit by adding ICD to CRT, however, in high-risk patients no further benefit could be observed.

Long-term survival following upgrade compared with de novo cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation: a single-centre, high-volume experience.

AIMS: Patients with a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator are often considered for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, limited comprehensive data are available regarding their long-term outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Our retrospective registry included 2524 patients [1977 (78%) de novo, 547 (22%) upgrade patients] with mild to severe symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, and QRS ≥ 130ms. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, heart transplantation (HTX), or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation; secondary endpoints were death from any cause and post-procedural complications. In our cohort, upgrade patients were older [71 (65-77) vs. 67 (59-73) years; P < 0.001], were less frequently females (20% vs. 27%; P = 0.002) and had more comorbidities than de novo patients. During the median follow-up time of 3.7 years, 1091 (55%) de novo and 342 (63%) upgrade patients reached the primary endpoint. In univariable analysis, upgrade patients exhibited a higher risk of mortality/HTX/LVAD than the de novo group [hazard ratio (HR): 1.41; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23-1.61; P < 0.001]. However, this difference disappeared after adjusting for covariates (adjusted HR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.86-1.48; P = 0.402), or propensity score matching (propensity score-matched HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.95-1.29; P = 0.215). From device-related complications, lead dysfunction (3.1% vs. 1%; P < 0.001) and pocket infections (3.7% vs. 1.8%; P = 0.014) were more frequent in the upgrade group compared to de novo patients. CONCLUSION: In our retrospective analysis, upgrade patients had a higher risk of all-cause mortality than de novo patients, which might be attributable to their more significant comorbidity burden. The occurrence of lead dysfunction and pocket infections was more frequent in the upgrade group.