Novel aggregated multiposition noncontact mapping of atrial tachycardia in humans: From computational modeling to clinical validation.

BACKGROUND: A novel aggregated multiposition noncontact mapping (AMP-NCM) algorithm is proposed to diagnose cardiac arrhythmias. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to computationally determine an accuracy threshold and to compare the accuracy and clinical utility of AMP-NCM to gold standard contact mapping. METHODS: In a cellular automata model, the number of catheter positions and chamber coverage were varied to establish accuracy requirements for clinically relevant AMP-NCM. This guided the clinical study protocol. In a prospective cohort of patients with atrial tachycardia (AT), noncontact mapping (NCM) recordings from a single position (SP) and multiple positions were compared to contact mapping with a high-density multipolar catheter using morphology and timing differences of reconstructed signals. Identification of AT mechanisms and ablation targets using both AMP-NCM and contact mapping were randomly evaluated by 5 blinded reviewers. RESULTS: AMP-NCM accuracy was asymptotic at 60 catheter positions in computational modeling. Twenty patients (age 65 ± 12 years; 19 male) with 26 ATs (5 focal, 21 reentrant) were studied. Morphologic correlation of signals derived from AMP-NCM was significantly better than those from SP-NCM compared to contact signals (median 0.93 vs 0.76; P <.001). AMP-NCM generated maps more rapidly than contact mapping (3 ± 1 minutes vs 13 ± 6 minutes; P <.001) and correctly diagnosed AT mechanisms in 25 of 26 maps (96%). Overall, 80% of arrhythmia mechanisms were correctly identified using AMP-NCM by blinded reviewers. CONCLUSION: Once 60 catheter positions were achieved, AMP-NCM successfully diagnosed mechanisms of AT and identified treatment sites equal to gold standard contact mapping in 3 minutes of procedural time.

Very long-term survival and late sudden cardiac death in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients.

AIMS: The very long-term outcome of patients who survive the first few years after receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has not been well described thus far. We aimed to provide long-term outcomes, especially with regard to the occurrence of sudden cardiac death (SCD), in CRT patients without (CRT-P) and with defibrillator (CRT-D). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1775 patients, with ischaemic or non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy, who were alive 5 years after CRT implantation, were enrolled in this multicentre European observational cohort study. Overall long-term mortality rates and specific causes of death were assessed, with a focus on late SCD. Over a mean follow-up of 30 months (interquartile range 10-42 months) beyond the first 5 years, we observed 473 deaths. The annual age-standardized mortality rates of CRT-D and CRT-P patients were 40.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 35.3-45.5] and 97.2 (95% CI 85.5-109.9) per 1000 patient-years, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality was 0.99 (95% CI 0.79-1.22). Twenty-nine patients in total died of late SCD (14 with CRT-P, 15 with CRT-D), corresponding to 6.1% of all causes of death in both device groups. Specific annual SCD rates were 8.5 and 5.8 per 1000 patient-years in CRT-P and CRT-D patients, respectively, with no significant difference between groups (adjusted HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.45-2.44). Death due to progressive heart failure represented the principal cause of death (42.8% in CRT-P patients and 52.6% among CRT-D recipients), whereas approximately one-third of deaths in both device groups were due to non-cardiovascular death. CONCLUSION: In this first description of very long-term outcomes among CRT recipients, progressive heart failure death still represented the most frequent cause of death in patients surviving the first 5 years after CRT implant. In contrast, SCD represents a very low proportion of late mortality irrespective of the presence of a defibrillator.

Sudden-onset severe presyncope in a 67-year-old man.

A 67-year-old man presented to the emergency department with sudden onset of severe presyncope. He reported that he had a permanent pacemaker implanted in 2006 following atrioventricular node ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). After suffering increasing shortness of breath, he underwent upgrade to cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) in 2016. He denied any recent falls, interventions or changes in medication. ECG monitoring showed AF with a broad ventricular escape rhythm at around 25 bpm with pauses of up to 3 s. Placement of a magnet over the device resulted in pacing (figure 1A). The implanted device (Medtronic Syncra C2TR01) was interrogated (figure 1B), and a chest radiograph was obtained (figure 2). heartjnl;105/8/657/F1F1F1Figure 1(A) Twelve-lead ECG demonstrating intrinsic rhythm and pacing after application of magnet. (B) Device interrogation with right ventricular threshold test. heartjnl;105/8/657/F2F2F2Figure 2(C) Anteroposterior chest radiograph demonstrating lead position on admission. QUESTION: What was the cause of this presentation?Noise oversensing on the right ventricular (RV) lead due to lead fracture.The RV septal lead has displaced into the right atrial (RA).RA and RV leads were switched in the can during the CRT upgrade.Increase in threshold of RV and left ventricular (LV) leads resulting in loss of capture.

Ablation of Complex Fractionated Electrograms Improves Outcome in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation of Over 2 Year's Duration.

AIM: There is controversy and sparse data on whether substrate based techniques in addition to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) confer benefit in the catheter ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF), especially if long standing. We performed an observational study to assess whether substrate based ablation improved freedom from atrial arrhythmia. METHODS: A total of 286 patients undergoing first ablation procedures for persistent AF with PVI only(n = 79), PVI plus linear ablation(n = 85), or PVI plus complex fractionated electrogram (CFAE) and linear ablation(n = 107) were followed. Primary end point was freedom from atrial arrhythmia at one year. RESULTS: Mean duration of pre-procedure time in AF was 28+/-27 months.There were no differences in baseline characteristics between groups except a higher proportion of patients with a severely dilated LA in those receiving PVI+CFAEs+lines. Freedom from atrial arrhythmia was higher with a PVI+CFAE+lines strategy then for PVI alone (HR 1.56, 95% CI: 1.04-2.34, p=0.032) but was not higher with PVI+lines. Benefit of substrate modification was conferred for preprocedure times in AF of over 30 months. The occurrence of atrial tachycardia was higher when lines were added to the ablation strategy (HR 0.08, 95% CI: 0.01-0.59, p=0.014). Freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 1 year was higher with lower patient age, use of general anaesthetic (GA), normal or mildly dilated left atrium and decreasing time in AF. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with long standing persistent AF of over 30 months duration,CFAE ablation resulted in improved freedom from atrial arrhythmia. Increased freedom from atrial arrhythmia occurs in patients who are younger and have smaller atria, and with GA procedures. Linear ablation did not improve outcome and resulted in a higher incidence of atrial tachycardia.

Device complications with addition of defibrillation to cardiac resynchronisation therapy for primary prevention.

OBJECTIVE: In patients indicated for cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT), the choice between a CRT-pacemaker (CRT-P) versus defibrillator (CRT-D) remains controversial and indications in this setting have not been well delineated. Apart from inappropriate therapies, which are inherent to the presence of a defibrillator, whether adding defibrillator to CRT in the primary prevention setting impacts risk of other acute and late device-related complications has not been well studied and may bear relevance for device selection. METHODS: Observational multicentre European cohort study of 3008 consecutive patients with ischaemic or non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy and no history of sustained ventricular arrhythmias, undergoing CRT implantation with (CRT-D, n=1785) or without (CRT-P, n=1223) defibrillator. Using propensity score and competing risk analyses, we assessed the risk of significant device-related complications requiring surgical reintervention. Inappropriate shocks were not considered except those due to lead malfunction requiring lead revision. RESULTS: Acute complications occurred in 148 patients (4.9%), without significant difference between groups, even after considering potential confounders (OR=1.20, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.00, p=0.47). During a mean follow-up of 41.4±29 months, late complications occurred in 475 patients, giving an annual incidence rate of 26 (95% CI 9 to 43) and 15 (95% CI 6 to 24) per 1000 patient-years in CRT-D and CRT-P patients, respectively. CRT-D was independently associated with increased occurrence of late complications (HR=1.68, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.23, p=0.001). In particular, when compared with CRT-P, CRT-D was associated with an increased risk of device-related infection (HR 2.10, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.45, p=0.004). Acute complications did not predict overall late complications, but predicted device-related infection (HR 2.85, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.56, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CRT-P, CRT-D is associated with a similar risk of periprocedural complications but increased risk of long-term complications, mainly infection. This needs to be considered in the decision of implanting CRT with or without a defibrillator.

Improved outcome and cost effectiveness in ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation under general anaesthetic.

Aims: Outcome of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation remains suboptimal. Techniques employed to reduce arrhythmia recurrence rate are more likely to be embraced if cost-effectiveness can be demonstrated. A single-centre observational study assessed whether use of general anaesthesia (GA) in persistent AF ablation improved outcome and was cost-effective. Methods and results: Two hundred and ninety two patients undergoing first ablation procedures for persistent AF under conscious sedation or GA were followed. End points were freedom from listing for repeat ablation at 18 months and freedom from recurrence of atrial arrhythmia at 1 year. Freedom from atrial arrhythmia was higher in patients who underwent ablation under GA rather than sedation (63.9% vs. 42.3%, hazard ratio (HR) 1.87, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23-2.86, P = 0.002). Significantly fewer GA patients were listed for repeat procedures (29.2% vs. 42.7%, HR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.01-2.60, P = 0.044). Despite GA procedures costing slightly more, a saving of £177 can be made per patient in our centre for a maximum of two procedures if all persistent AF ablations are performed under GA. Conclusions: In patients with persistent AF, it is both clinical and economically more effective to perform ablation under GA rather than sedation.

Patients upgraded to cardiac resynchronization therapy due to pacing-induced cardiomyopathy are at low risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias: a long-term cause-of-death analysis.

Aims: Upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) should be offered to patients who have developed pacing-induced cardiomyopathy with conventional right ventricular pacing. The extent to which these patients would also benefit from defibrillator back-up at the time of CRT upgrade is, however, unknown. Methods and results: Retrospective observational cohort study of 199 patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and no history of sustained ventricular arrhythmia, including 104 upgraded to CRT-Pacemaker (CRT-P) and 95 upgraded to CRT-Defibrillator (CRT-D). The incidence of ventricular arrhythmias and the risk of sudden arrhythmic death obtained through a cause-of-death analysis based on clinical data and necropsy results were assessed and compared between the two groups. During a mean follow-up of 66 ± 24 months, 40 (38.5%) CRT-P patients died: three from primary arrhythmic death, while the remaining died of different causes (especially progressive heart failure), giving an incidence of 6.2 sudden arrhythmic deaths per 1000 patient-years. No episode of sustained VT was observed in the study group. There were no sudden arrhythmic deaths in the CRT-D group during a shorter follow-up, but the small and non-significant difference in all-cause mortality between CRT-Pacemaker (CRT-P) and CRT-D groups was mostly accounted for by an increase in non-sudden death. Women upgraded to CRT were at particularly low risk of all-cause mortality compared with men (HR 0.232, P = 0.048). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that patients who develop pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and are upgraded to CRT may not derive any significant benefit from the addition of the defibrillator in the absence of a history of ventricular arrhythmias.

Do women benefit equally as men from the primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator?

Women traditionally have been and are still underrepresented in research in many important areas of cardiology, and guideline recommendations which also encompass women are mostly based on research conducted predominantly in men. However, there is plausible cause to believe that sex may have a potential influence on the benefit derived from the implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD), alone or in association with cardiac resynchronization therapy. We assessed the possible relationship between sex and outcome with ICD implantation in the setting of primary prevention, by pooling the results of MUSTT, MADIT-II, DEFINITE, COMPANION, SCD-HeFT and DANISH trials in a meta-analysis. We pooled results for female and male patients separately. The results suggest that women as a group do not seem to obtain a significant survival benefit from the primary prevention ICD, contrary to men. This in turn may also have contributed to a relative underestimation of the ICD benefit among males when looking at the results in total. It is time for the medical and research communities to actively question the presumed overarching benefit of ICDs irrespective of sex and engage in systematic scientific efforts to definitively evaluate the value of this intervention in women.

Adding Defibrillation Therapy to Cardiac Resynchronization on the Basis of the Myocardial Substrate.

BACKGROUND: Patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) may be at lower risk for ventricular arrhythmias compared with those with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). In addition, DCM has been identified as a predictor of positive response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of an additional implantable cardioverter-defibrillator over CRT, according to underlying heart disease, in a large study group of primary prevention patients with heart failure. METHODS: This was an observational, multicenter, European cohort study of 5,307 consecutive patients with DCM or ICM, no history of sustained ventricular arrhythmias, who underwent CRT implantation with (n = 4,037) or without (n = 1,270) a defibrillator. Propensity-score and cause-of-death analyses were used to compare outcomes. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up period of 41.4 ± 29.0 months, patients with ICM had better survival when receiving CRT with a defibrillator compared with those who received CRT without a defibrillator (hazard ratio for mortality adjusted on propensity score and all mortality predictors: 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62 to 0.92; p = 0.005), whereas in patients with DCM, no such difference was observed (hazard ratio: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.16; p = 0.49). Compared with recipients of defibrillators, the excess mortality in patients who did not receive defibrillators was related to sudden cardiac death in 8.0% among those with ICM but in only 0.4% of those with DCM. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure with indications for CRT, those with DCM may not benefit from additional primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy, as opposed to those with ICM.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator elective generator replacement: a procedure for all?

PURPOSE: Six risk stratification scores have been developed to estimate mortality risk in patients receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). This study aims at validating and comparing these risk scores in patients having elective ICD generator replacement (GR) and assessing the outcome of patients submitted to this procedure. METHODS: Two hundred twenty three consecutive patients with ischaemic or non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy submitted to elective ICD GR and followed-up for 44 ± 19 months were included. We evaluated which of six previously developed risk scores could predict post-discharge all-cause mortality risk in this context with the highest efficacy. Comparisons between these scores were made using receiver-operating characteristic curves and the integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) index. We further assessed risk of appropriate ICD therapies and all-cause mortality following ICD GR. RESULTS: The prognostic utility of the six scores was assessed by calculating the AUC for follow-up all-cause mortality prediction: Goldenberg - 0.758 ± 0.042, p < 0.001; Parkash - 0.754 ± 0.042, p < 0.001; Bilchick - 0.813 ± 0.038, p < 0.001; Kraaier - 0.721 ± 0.043, p < 0.001; REPLACE DARE - 0.746 ± 0.048, p < 0.001; Providencia - 0.739 ± 0.043, p < 0.001. Through measures of risk reclassification (IDI and relative IDI), the score by Bilchick et al. was shown to outperform all other scores. Binary logistic regression identified pre-GR-appropriate ICD therapy as an independent predictor of post-GR ICD therapy (OR 6.2, CI 95% 3.0-12.7, p < 0.001), along with male gender (OR 6.6, CI 95% 0.8-55, p = 0.082) and history of atrial fibrillation (OR 2.28, CI 95% 1.1-4.5, p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Current prediction scores are useful in predicting mortality risk of patients considered for ICD generator replacement and can potentially help identify patients who may not benefit from continuous ICD treatment due to high mortality rates regardless of the ICD.

Applicability of a risk score for prediction of the long-term benefit of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy.

AIMS: The Goldenberg risk score, comprising five clinical risk factors (New York Heart Association class >2, atrial fibrillation, QRS duration >120 ms, age >70 years, and urea >26 mg/dL), may help identify patients in whom the survival benefit of the defibrillator may be limited. We aim at assessing whether this score can accurately predict the long-term all-cause mortality risk of patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and identify those who are more likely to benefit from the defibrillator. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this retrospective observational cohort study, 638 patients with ischaemic or non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy who had CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) (n = 224) vs. CRT-pacemaker (CRT-P) (n = 414) implantation were prospectively followed up for survival outcomes. The long-term outcome of patients with CRT-D vs. CRT-P was compared within risk score categories and in patients with severe renal dysfunction. Mean follow-up in surviving and deceased patients was 62.7 and 32.5 months, respectively. This score showed higher discriminative performance in all-cause mortality prediction in CRT-D vs. CRT-P patients (area under the curve 0.718 ± 0.041 vs. 0.650 ± 0.032, respectively, P = 0.001). In those with scores 0-2, a CRT-D device decreased mortality rates in the first 4 years of follow-up compared with CRT-P (11.3 vs. 24.7%, P = 0.041), but this effect attenuated with longer follow-up duration (21.2 vs. 32.7%, P = 0.078). In this group, the benefit of CRT-D during the follow-up was seen after adjusting for traditional mortality predictors (hazard ratio 0.339, P = 0.001). No significant differences in mortality rates were seen in patients with score ≥3 (57.9% with CRT-D vs. 56.9%, P = 0.8) and those with severe renal dysfunction (92.9% in CRT-D vs. 76.2%, P = 0.17). Similar results were seen following propensity score matching. CONCLUSION: A simple risk stratification score comprising five clinical risk factors may help identify CRT patients who are more likely to benefit from the presence of the defibrillator.

Importance of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Back-Up in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Recipients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: It remains to be determined whether patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) benefit from the addition of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a literature search looking for studies of patients implanted with CRTs. Comparisons were performed between patients receiving CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) versus CRT-pacemaker (CRT-P). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The relative risk (RR) and hazard ratio (HR, when available) were used as measurements of treatment effect. Nineteen entries were entitled for inclusion, comprising 12 378 patients (7030 receiving CRT-D and 5348 receiving CRT-P) and 29 799 patient-years of follow-up. Those receiving CRT-D were younger, were more often males, had lower NYHA class, lower prevalence of atrial fibrillation, higher prevalence of ischemic heart disease, and were more often on beta-blockers. Ten studies showed significantly lower mortality rates with the CRT-D device, while the remaining 9 were neutral. The pooled data of studies revealed that CRT-D patients had significantly lower mortality rates compared with CRT-P patients (mortality rates: CRT-D 16.6% versus CRT-P 27.1%; RR=0.69, 95% CI 0.62-0.76; P<0.00001). The number needed to treat to prevent one death was 10. The observed I(2) values showed moderate heterogeneity among studies (I(2)=48%). The benefit of CRT-D was more pronounced in ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR=0.70, 95% CI 0.59-0.83, P<0.001, I(2)=0%), but a trend for benefit, albeit of lower magnitude, could also be seen in non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (HR=0.79, 95% CI 0.61-1.02, P=0.07, I(2)=36%). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of the ICD associates with a reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality in CRT patients. This seems to be more pronounced in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Cardioverter-defibrillator implantation and generator replacement in the octogenarian.

AIMS: Increase in life expectancy has led to increased rate of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation in patients in their 80s, but there are no current formal recommendations to guide physicians when elderly patients with ICDs require elective unit replacement (EUR). This study aims at assessing survival and rates of ICD therapies in patients who have had ICD implantation or EUR above the age of 80, focusing on the latter. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively kept database of all ICD-related procedures carried out in a single tertiary centre. Patients 80 years of age or older submitted to ICD implantation (n = 42) or EUR (n = 34) between November 1991 and May 2012 were included. Using collected baseline and outcome data from this cohort, we assessed survival of these patients and the rates of ICD therapies. Median additional years of life after ICD implantation and ICD EUR in patients who died before data retrieval was 2.5 and 1.2, respectively, and while 65% of deceased patients after ICD implantation died in the first 3 years after the procedure, 50% of deceased post-ICD EUR patients died within the first year. Mortality rates at 1 and 2 years post-EUR were 23.1 and 38.1%, respectively. Furthermore, ventricular tachycardia occurred in a small minority of patients after EUR (16.7%) and no ventricular fibrillation-triggered ICD therapies were reported in both groups. CONCLUSION: In octogenarians who are due for an ICD EUR, careful thought should be given to the current clinical status, comorbidities, and general frailty prior to considering them for the procedure. A survival benefit from ICD EUR in this age stratum is not likely.

Development of a multiparametric score to predict left ventricular remodelling and prognosis after cardiac resynchronization therapy.

AIMS: Optimal delivery of CRT requires appropriate patient selection and device implantation. Echocardiographic predictors of CRT response individually appear to enhance patient selection, but do not fully reflect the complex underlying myocardial dysfunction. We hypothesized that a multiparametric approach would offer greater predictive value and sought to derive a score incorporating baseline characteristics including: dyssynchrony, LV function, and LV lead position. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were analysed from 294 patients undergoing CRT between June 2008 and December 2012. All patients were in sinus rhythm with QRS >120 ms, NYHA class II-IV, and LVEF <35%. Detailed clinical assessment including echocardiography was completed at baseline and 6 months after CRT. Response was defined as a ≥15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume. Dyssynchrony (interventricular delay and radial strain delay), global longitudinal strain, and LV lead position were independent predictors of LV remodelling and were used to derive a predictive score which correlated with reduction in LV volume (r = - 0.5, P < 0.001) and was higher with QRS >150 ms and non-ischaemic aetiology. A cut-off score <0.6 offered the highest specificity and positive predictive value (100%) to determine non-response. A score >3.28 offered high specificity (specificity 86%, sensitivity 70%) to predict response. Survival proportion at longer term follow-up was low (21%) in the group with predictive score <0.6. CONCLUSION: A multiparametric strategy, which defines anticipated probability of response to CRT, offers potential to predict non-responders with poor long-term survival following CRT. The value of this approach in avoiding unnecessary device implantation with potential for harm requires validation in large multicentre studies.

Prognostic benefit of optimum left ventricular lead position in cardiac resynchronization therapy: follow-up of the TARGET Study Cohort (Targeted Left Ventricular Lead Placement to guide Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to assess the impact of left ventricular (LV) lead position on longer-term survival after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). BACKGROUND: An optimal LV lead position in CRT is associated with improved clinical outcome. A strategy of speckle-tracking echocardiography can be used to guide the implanter to the site of latest activation and away from segments of low strain amplitude (scar). Long-term, prospective survival data according to LV lead position in CRT are limited. METHODS: Data from a follow-up registry of 250 consecutive patients receiving CRT between June 2008 and July 2010 were studied. The study population comprised patients recruited to the derivation group and the subsequent TARGET (Targeted Left Ventricular Lead Placement to guide Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) randomized, controlled trial. Final LV lead position was described, in relation to the pacing site determined by pre-procedure speckle-tracking echocardiography, as optimal (concordant/adjacent) or suboptimal (remote). All-cause mortality was recorded at follow-up. RESULTS: An optimal LV lead position (n = 202) conferred LV remodeling response superior to that of a suboptimal lead position (change in LV end-systolic volume: -24 ± 15% vs. -12 ± 17% [p < 0.001]; change in ejection fraction: +7 ± 8% vs. +4 ± 7% [p = 0.02]). During long-term follow-up (median: 39 months; range: <1 to 61 months), an optimal LV lead position was associated with improved survival (log-rank p = 0.003). A suboptimal LV lead placement independently predicted all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 1.8; p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: An optimal LV lead position at the site of latest mechanical activation, avoiding low strain amplitude (scar), was associated with superior CRT response and improved survival that persisted during follow-up.

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy: pacemaker versus internal cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with impaired left ventricular function.

OBJECTIVE: Studies have shown beneficial effects of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) on mortality among patients with heart failure. However the incremental benefits in survival from CRT with a defibrillator (CRT-D) are unclear. The choice of appropriate device remains unanswered. METHOD: This is a single-centre observational study in a tertiary cardiac centre. Patients (n=500) implanted with a CRT device with pacing alone (CRT-P) (n=354) and CRT-D (n=146) were followed for at least 2 years (mean 29 months, SD 14 months). The primary end point was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 116 deaths (23.2%) were recorded: 88 (24.8%) and 28 (19.2%), in the CRT-P and CRT-D groups, respectively. At 1 year there was a trend favouring CRT-D (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.07, p=0.08) but this was attenuated by the 2nd year and became insignificant at the end of follow-up (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.170, p=0.21). There was no survival benefit from having an internal cardioverter-defibrillator if patients were deemed non-responders to CRT. 27% of the CRT-P patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy met indications for potential internal cardioverter-defibrillator implantation for primary prevention. These were older patients with poorer baseline function in comparison with CRT-D patients with devices for primary prevention. Once these differences were adjusted for, there was no difference in outcome between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: CRT-D did not offer additional survival advantage over CRT-P at longer-term follow-up, as the clinical benefit of a defibrillator attenuated with time. Further work is needed to define which subset of patients benefit from CRT-D.