4.7 Article

Multiple Comorbidities and Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy MADIT-CRT Long-Term Follow-Up

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 69, Issue 19, Pages 2369-2379

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.531

Keywords

cardiac resynchronization therapy; heart failure; mortality

Funding

  1. Boston Scientific (St. Paul, Minnesota)
  2. National Institutes of Health [2 T32 HL 69749-11 A1]
  3. Boston Scientific
  4. St. Jude Medical
  5. Medtronic
  6. Biotronik
  7. Gilead
  8. Biosense
  9. Zoll
  10. Vytronus
  11. Orexigen
  12. Arca Biopharma
  13. Cardiofocus

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND Data regarding cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with multiple comorbidities are limited. OBJECTIVES This study evaluated the association of multiple comorbidities with the benefits of CRT over implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) alone. METHODS We examined 1,214 MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) study patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and 0, 1, 2, or >= 3 comorbidities, including renal dysfunction, hypertension (HTN), diabetes, coronary artery disease, history of atrial arrhythmias, history of ventricular arrhythmias, current smoking, and cerebrovascular accident. In an adjusted analysis, we analyzed risk of heart failure (HF) events or death by comorbidity group in all patients and in patients with CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) versus ICD. Then we examined percent change in left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume, LV ejection fraction, left atrial volume, and LV dyssynchrony at 1-year in CRT-D patients by comorbidity group. RESULTS There was an inverse relationship between comorbidity burden and improvements in LV end-systolic volume, LV end-diastolic volume, left ventricular ejection fraction, left atrial volume, and LV dyssynchrony. In an adjusted model, there was an increasing risk of death or nonfatal HF events with increasing comorbidity burden regardless of treatment group (p < 0.001). During a mean follow-up of 4.65 years, there was no interaction with respect to comorbidity burden and the benefit of CRT-D versus ICD only for death or nonfatal HF events (interaction p = 0.943). In the groups with greatest comorbidity burden (2 and >= 3), the absolute risk reduction associated with CRT-D over ICD alone appeared greater than that seen for groups with less comorbidity burden (0 and 1). CONCLUSIONS During long-term follow-up of MADIT-CRT study patients with LBBB randomized to CRT-D, there were differences in HF or death risk and in the degree of reverse remodeling among comorbidity groups. However, the burden of comorbidity does not appear to compromise the clinical benefits of CRT-D compared with ICD alone. (C) 2017 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available