47CRT-D versus CRT-P: are we on the right track?

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) have both proven to reduce mortality in patients with heart failure (HF). However, randomised trials comparing CRT-pacemaker (CRT-P) vs CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) are lacking. Understanding a patient’s primary mode of death is therefore important as this may guide the proper use of CRT systems and avoid risks that are associated with under -or overtreatment with an ICD. Purpose This study aims to analyse the mode of death and the occurrence of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) in patients who received a CRT-P or CRT-D. This may help in the future selection for an appropriate cardiac device in patients with HF. Methods Patients with HF undergoing CRT-P or CRT-D implantation in a tertiary hospital between January 2008 and December 2018 were retrospectively evaluated. CRT indications were in compliance with the ESC guidelines. The decision to implant CRT-D or CRT-P in primary prevention was left at the discretion of the treating physician but was based on ESC clinical guidance. Life threatening VAs (sustained ventricular tachycardia > 30s not requiring therapy or appropriate therapy for VAs) and mode of death were analysed. Results 511 patients were implanted with a CRT (CRT-D/CRT-P; n = 311/200) of which 410 (CRT-D/CRT-P; n= 245/165) were followed in our centre for 63,5 ± 38,1 months. Patients with CRT-P were older (77,6 ± 8,1 vs 66,8 ± 9,5 years; p <0,001), more often female (39,4 vs 26,9%; p 0,006), had more a non-ischaemic cause (61,2 vs 44,9%; p 0,001) and a significant higher comorbidity burden. They also received less treatment with neurohumoral blockers. Baseline LVEF was higher in the CRT-P group (33,1 ± 8,9 vs 28,0 ± 7,6%, p <0,001). 6 months follow-up showed a similar increase in LVEF in the CRT-P vs CRT-D group (+10,3 ± 9,6 vs +11,4 ± 10,8%, p 0,38). Main reasons to choose for CRT-P were RV-pacing induced cardiomyopathy (CMP) (26,1%), multiple comorbidities (18,8%), HF complicated by high degree AV block or AV junction ablation (18,2%), non-ischaemic CMP with suspected good CRT response (10,3%), age (7,3%), other (19,3%). 6/165 patients with CRT-P (3,6%), of which 5 were detected by remoted telemonitoring, vs 51/245 with CRT-D (20,8%) experienced episodes of life-threatening arrhythmias (p <0,001). All-cause mortality was higher in the CRT-P vs CRT-D group (36,4 vs 25,3%, p 0,005). However, the CRT-P group had a predominant non-cardiac mode of death (70,9 vs 43,3%, p <0,001). Death secondary to a tachyarrhythmic event was present in only 1 patient (1,7%) in the CRT-P group. Conclusions Guided by clinical parameters and presence of competitive non-cardiac causes of death, adequate decision between CRT-P or CRT-D implantation can be made. In our cohort, sudden cardiac death in the CRT-P group occurred only once. Remote monitoring is able to identify a subgroup of patients potentially benefiting from an upgrade from CRT-P to CRT-D.