Search

Background: The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) showed that early intervention with cardiac-resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) in patients with an electrocardiographic pattern showing left bundle-branch block was associated with a significant reduction in heart-failure events over a median follow-up of 2.4 years, as compared with defibrillator therapy alone., Methods: We evaluated the effect of CRT-D on long-term survival in the MADIT-CRT population. Post-trial follow-up over a median period of 5.6 years was assessed among all 1691 surviving patients (phase 1) and subsequently among 854 patients who were enrolled in post-trial registries (phase 2). All reported analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis., Results: At 7 years of follow-up after initial enrollment, the cumulative rate of death from any cause among patients with left bundle-branch block was 18% among patients randomly assigned to CRT-D, as compared with 29% among those randomly assigned to defibrillator therapy alone (adjusted hazard ratio in the CRT-D group, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.80; P<0.001). The long-term survival benefit of CRT-D in patients with left bundle-branch block did not differ significantly according to sex, cause of cardiomyopathy, or QRS duration. In contrast, CRT-D was not associated with any clinical benefit and possibly with harm in patients without left bundle-branch block (adjusted hazard ratio for death from any cause, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.39; P=0.04; P<0.001 for interaction of treatment with QRS morphologic findings)., Conclusions: Our findings indicate that in patients with mild heart-failure symptoms, left ventricular dysfunction, and left bundle-branch block, early intervention with CRT-D was associated with a significant long-term survival benefit. (Funded by Boston Scientific; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00180271, NCT01294449, and NCT02060110.).

Background: The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is highly effective in reducing mortality among patients at risk for fatal arrhythmias, but inappropriate ICD activations are frequent, with potential adverse effects., Methods: We randomly assigned 1500 patients with a primary-prevention indication to receive an ICD with one of three programming configurations. The primary objective was to determine whether programmed high-rate therapy (with a 2.5-second delay before the initiation of therapy at a heart rate of ≥200 beats per minute) or delayed therapy (with a 60-second delay at 170 to 199 beats per minute, a 12-second delay at 200 to 249 beats per minute, and a 2.5-second delay at ≥250 beats per minute) was associated with a decrease in the number of patients with a first occurrence of inappropriate antitachycardia pacing or shocks, as compared with conventional programming (with a 2.5-second delay at 170 to 199 beats per minute and a 1.0-second delay at ≥200 beats per minute)., Results: During an average follow-up of 1.4 years, high-rate therapy and delayed ICD therapy, as compared with conventional device programming, were associated with reductions in a first occurrence of inappropriate therapy (hazard ratio with high-rate therapy vs. conventional therapy, 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13 to 0.34; P<0.001; hazard ratio with delayed therapy vs. conventional therapy, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.40; P<0.001) and reductions in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio with high-rate therapy vs. conventional therapy, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.85; P=0.01; hazard ratio with delayed therapy vs. conventional therapy, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.02; P=0.06). There were no significant differences in procedure-related adverse events among the three treatment groups., Conclusions: Programming of ICD therapies for tachyarrhythmias of 200 beats per minute or higher or with a prolonged delay in therapy at 170 beats per minute or higher, as compared with conventional programming, was associated with reductions in inappropriate therapy and all-cause mortality during long-term follow-up. (Funded by Boston Scientific; MADIT-RIT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00947310.).

Background: This trial was designed to determine whether cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing would reduce the risk of death or heart-failure events in patients with mild cardiac symptoms, a reduced ejection fraction, and a wide QRS complex., Methods: During a 4.5-year period, we enrolled and followed 1820 patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy, an ejection fraction of 30% or less, a QRS duration of 130 msec or more, and New York Heart Association class I or II symptoms. Patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to receive CRT plus an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (1089 patients) or an ICD alone (731 patients). The primary end point was death from any cause or a nonfatal heart-failure event (whichever came first). Heart-failure events were diagnosed by physicians who were aware of the treatment assignments, but they were adjudicated by a committee that was unaware of assignments., Results: During an average follow-up of 2.4 years, the primary end point occurred in 187 of 1089 patients in the CRT-ICD group (17.2%) and 185 of 731 patients in the ICD-only group (25.3%) (hazard ratio in the CRT-ICD group, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.84; P=0.001). The benefit did not differ significantly between patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and those with nonischemic cardiomyopathy. The superiority of CRT was driven by a 41% reduction in the risk of heart-failure events, a finding that was evident primarily in a prespecified subgroup of patients with a QRS duration of 150 msec or more. CRT was associated with a significant reduction in left ventricular volumes and improvement in the ejection fraction. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the overall risk of death, with a 3% annual mortality rate in each treatment group. Serious adverse events were infrequent in the two groups., Conclusions: CRT combined with ICD decreased the risk of heart-failure events in relatively asymptomatic patients with a low ejection fraction and wide QRS complex. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00180271.), (2009 Massachusetts Medical Society)

We examined the role of electrophysiologic testing in the prediction of long-term outcome in 166 survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest not associated with acute myocardial infarction. Ventricular arrhythmias were inducible in 131 patients (79 percent) at base line and were suppressed by antiarrhythmic drugs or surgery (or both) in 91 of 127 (72 percent). During a median follow-up period of 21 months, cardiac arrest recurred in 29 patients: 11 (12 percent) of the 91 in whom inducible arrhythmias had been suppressed (including 5 patients in whom treatment had been discontinued), 12 (33 percent) of the 36 in whom inducible arrhythmias persisted, and 6 (17 percent) of the 35 in whom arrhythmias could not be induced at the initial electrophysiologic study. Cox survival analysis identified the following three variables as significant independent predictors of recurrent cardiac arrest: persistence of inducible ventricular arrhythmias (relative risk, 3.97 [95 percent confidence interval, 1.80 to 8.75], P = 0.0006), a left ventricular ejection fraction of 30 percent or less (relative risk, 2.60 [1.21 to 5.53], P = 0.0138), and the absence of cardiac surgery (relative risk, 4.20 [0.99 to 17.77], P = 0.0512). We conclude that electrophysiologic testing is useful in quantifying the subsequent risk of cardiac arrest among survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.