Cardiac resynchronisation therapy: pacemaker versus internal cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with impaired left ventricular function.
Looi KL., Gajendragadkar PR., Khan FZ., Elsik M., Begley DA., Fynn SP., Grace AA., Heck PM., Virdee M., Agarwal S.
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.