Conference Coverage

CRT-D beneficial in mild HF with ejection fraction above 30%

View on the News

Francis J. Podbielski, MD, FCCP, comments on CRT-D
Francis J. Podbielski, MD

The authors demonstrate the benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with a defibrillator. The reduction in mortality at 5 years was greater in high responders to CRT-D, although overall mortality was significantly reduced in all comers.

Dr. Francis J. Podbielski


AT ACC 2017

– Patients with mild heart failure symptoms, left bundle branch block, and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 31% to 44% who received cardiac resynchronization therapy with a built-in defibrillator experienced a significant reduction in all-cause mortality, compared with those randomized to an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator alone during 7 years of follow-up.

These results from a new MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) long-term follow-up substudy “suggest that patients with a relatively preserved ejection fraction greater than 30% benefit from CRT-D [cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator] and could potentially be considered for this therapy,” said Katherine Vermilye, MD, at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

Dr. Katherine Vermilye Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Katherine Vermilye

This represents a broadening beyond the conclusions earlier reached in the landmark MADIT-CRT trial. In the primary report, MADIT-CRT investigators concluded that CRT-D significantly reduced the risk of heart failure events, compared with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) alone during an average follow-up of 2.4 years in patients with mild symptoms of either ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy, a wide QRS duration, an left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 30% or less, and left bundle branch block, but not in those who didn’t have left bundle branch block (N Engl J Med. 2009 Oct 1;361[14]:1329-38).

In a subsequent publication, the MADIT-CRT investigators reported that, with extension of follow-up to 7 years, CRT-D also provided a significant benefit in terms of all-cause mortality in addition to the reduced rate of heart failure events (N Engl J Med. 2014 May 1;370[18]:1694-701).

However, even though an LVEF of 30% or less was a requirement for participation in MADIT-CRT, it turned out that, when the initial screening echocardiograms were eventually analyzed in a central core laboratory, one-third of study participants actually had a baseline LVEF of 31% to 44%, with the majority of excessive values being in the 31%-35% range.

Dr. Vermilye, of the University of Rochester in New York, presented a post hoc analysis of long-term outcomes in the subgroup having a baseline LVEF greater than 30%. They totaled 450 of 1,224 MADIT-CRT participants with left bundle branch block. They were significantly older and more likely to be female than the 824 subjects with an LVEF of 30% or less. They also had a shorter QRS duration – an average of 160 ms, versus 165 ms in patients with an LVEF of 30% or lower – and a smaller baseline left ventricular end systolic volume of 151 mL, compared with 196 mL in patients with a lower LVEF.

In a multivariate Cox regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders, CRT-D in patients with a baseline LVEF greater than 30% was associated with a 54% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality at 7 years of follow-up, compared with receipt of an ICD-only device and with a smaller yet significant 31% reduction in risk in those with an LVEF of 30% or less. Worsening heart failure events were reduced by 64% in patients with a baseline LVEF greater than 30% who received CRT-D, compared with ICD-only, and by 54% in those with a lower baseline LVEF.

The reduction in all-cause mortality seen with CRT-D was confined to patients who were high responders to CRT as defined echocardiographically by at least a 35% change in left ventricular end systolic volume 1 year post implantation. They had an 85% reduction in the risk of death during 7 years of follow-up with CRT-D if their baseline LVEF was greater than 30% and a 58% relative risk reduction if their LVEF was 30% or less.

In contrast, CRT-D brought a significantly reduced risk of heart failure events regardless of whether a patient was a low or high responder, although the magnitude of benefit was greater in the high responders. Among patients with a baseline LVEF greater than 30%, CRT-D low responders had a 52% reduction in risk of heart failure events, compared with ICD recipients, while CRT-D high responders had an 81% relative risk reduction. Similarly, in patients with a baseline LVEF of 30% or less, CRT-D low responders had 48% reduction in heart failure events and high responders had a 79% risk reduction, compared with the ICD-only group.

Because this is a post hoc analysis, these new MADIT-CRT findings require validation in future studies, Dr. Vermilye observed.

MADIT-CRT was supported by Boston Scientific. Dr.. Vermilye reported having no financial conflicts.

Recommended Reading

Heart failure readmission metric not linked to care quality
The Hospitalist
Observational hospital stays for HF linked to worse outcomes
The Hospitalist
Big changes ahead in heart failure management
The Hospitalist
Prediction: LVADs will rule end-stage heart failure
The Hospitalist
New-onset AF boosts bad HFrEF outcomes
The Hospitalist
Uptake of new heart failure drugs slow despite guidelines
The Hospitalist
It’s been a good year for heart failure research ... mostly
The Hospitalist
   Comments ()