4.6 Article

Survival in New York Heart Association class IV heart failure patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy compared with patients on optimal pharmacological treatment

Journal

EUROPACE
Volume 12, Issue 8, Pages 1136-1140

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euq163

Keywords

Resynchronization therapy; Advanced heart failure; Cardiovascular mortality

Funding

  1. Thematic Networks in Health Cooperative Research [REDINSCOR RD 06/0003/008]
  2. Medtronic
  3. Fundacion Espanola del Corazon, Madrid

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although the benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in selected patients with heart failure is well established, its effect on mortality in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV patients remains unclear. Our study evaluated the effect of CRT on urgent transplant-free survival in NYHA class IV patients treated with CRT, compared with medication-only treatment. Forty NYHA class IV patients treated with CRT (80% men, 62.5% ischaemic, mean age of 65) were matched 1:1 by age, gender and aetiology of cardiomyopathy with patients treated with optimal medical therapy (OPT group). No significant differences were found between the groups in left ventricular diastolic diameter (71 +/- 6 vs. 73 +/- 9 mm), left ventricular systolic diameter (58 +/- 7 vs. 61 +/- 11 mm), and left ventricular ejection fraction (23 +/- 5 vs. 22 +/- 6%). Mean follow-up was 13.2 +/- 9.5 months for the CRT group and 17.3 +/- 11.6 months for the OPT group. Time to all-cause death or urgent transplantation [hazard ratios (HR), 1.29; 95% CI: 0.59-2.83; P = 0.52] or to cardiovascular death or urgent transplantation (HR, 1.53; 95% CI: 0.64-3.67; P = 0.34) was not reduced significantly in patients treated with CRT. In this study, CRT did not significantly improve survival of NYHA class IV heart failure patients compared with pharmacological therapy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available