Cardiac resynchronization therapy using pacemakers vs defibrillators in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy: The United States experience from 2007 to 2014

Saba, Samir; McLaughlin, Terence; He, Meiqi; Althouse, Andrew D.; Mulukutla, Suresh; Hernandez, Inmaculada

doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2019.04.028

Cited by 18 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…was not associated with prolonged survival especially in nonischemic cardiomyopathy and no previous history of ventricular arrhythmias, as compared to CRT-P. 26,27 Besides, in systolic heart failure patients aged ≧75 years 28 or ≧80 years, 29 there was no significant difference in the risk of mortality between CRT-D and CRT-P groups after adjusting for baseline differences. Since (a) F I G U R E 3 Age-stratified CIEDs implant trends.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Trends in the use of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy device in advancing age: Analysis of the Japan cardiac device treatment registry database

Yokoshiki

Shimizu²,

Mitsuhashi

et al. 2020

Journal of Arrhythmia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Trends of de novo implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) including implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT‐D) or pacemaker (CRT‐P) in advancing age are unknown. Methods Analysis of data from the Japan cardiac device treatment registry (JCDTR) with an implantation date between January 2006 and December 2016 was performed focusing on advancing age of ≧75 years. Results The cohort included 17 564 ICD, 9470 CRT‐D and 1087 CRT‐P recipients for de novo implantation. The rate of patients ≧75 years of age increased from 17.1% to 20.5% in ICD implantation (P = .052), from 19.7% to 30.0% in CRT‐D implantation (P < .0001), and from 40.0% to 64.0% in CRT‐P implantation (P = .17). There was an apparent increase in the percentage of nonischemic patients aged ≧75 years receiving ICD (10.9% in 2006 to 16.4% in 2016, P = .0008) and CRT‐D (17.1% in 2006 to 27.8% in 2016, P = .0001). The implantation for primary prevention ICD (P = .059) and CRT‐D (P = .012) was also associated with a temporal increase in the percentage of patients aged ≧75 years. Conclusions Proportion of patients ≧75 years of age for de novo CIED implantation gradually increased from 2006 to 2016, presumably because of the growing number of nonischemic cardiomyopathy and heart failure patients requiring primary prevention of sudden cardiac death.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Trends in the use of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy device in advancing age: Analysis of the Japan cardiac device treatment registry database

Yokoshiki

Shimizu²,

Mitsuhashi

et al. 2020

Journal of Arrhythmia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of those included studies, 17 of them reported aHR of all‐cause mortality, 6,8–10,12–14,16,17,19–27 and four studies reported HRs after PSM 8,14,17,19 . Adjusted covariates of each study are listed in Table S2.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Adjusted covariates of each study are listed in Table S2. CRT‐D implantation as a primary prevention therapy was identified in seven studies 6,10,12,14,17,19,25 . We assessed the quality of studies by using NOS, and only four studies had a score of ≥7 (Table S3).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this choice in practice may put clinicians in a dilemma. So far, several studies focusing on the comparison of CRT‐D and CRT‐P in all‐cause mortality has been reported, which used Cox multivariate analysis or propensity score matching (PSM) to minimize the influence of clinical differences between groups 6,8–19 . Therefore, we aim to review those studies to clarify the association of all‐cause mortality and additional ICD in patients receiving CRT, and optimize the management of patients based on characteristics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The benefits of defibrillator in heart failure patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy: A meta‐analysis

Long

Cui

et al. 2021

Pacing Clinical Electrophis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Current guidelines did not provide recommendations on indications of an additional implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) to patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and it still remains controversial due to lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials. Method PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from the inception to May 2020 were systematically screened for studies reporting on the comparison of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT‐D) and cardiac resynchronization therapy with pacemaker (CRT‐P), focusing on the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of all‐cause mortality. We pooled the effects using a random‐effect model. Results Twenty‐one studies encompassing 69,919 patients were included in this meta‐analysis. With no restriction to characteristics of including population, CRT‐D was associated with a lower all‐cause mortality compared with CRT‐P significantly (aHR: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74‐0.87, I2 = 36.8%, p < .001). This mortality benefit was also observed in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (aHR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.64‐0.86, I2 = 0%, p < .001). However, there is no significant difference in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) (aHR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.82‐1.01, I2 = 0%, p = .087), older age (age ≥75 years, aHR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.83‐1.12, I2 = 0%, p = .610). Subgroup analysis was performed and indicated the survival benefit of CRT‐D for primary prevention compared with CRT‐P (aHR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.79‐0.95, I2 = 0%, p = .003). Conclusion After adjusted the differences in clinical characteristics, additional ICD therapy was associated with a reduced all‐cause mortality in patients receiving CRT. However, our work suggested that additional ICD may not be applied to elderly (≥75 years) or patients with NICM.

show abstract

“…However, this choice in practice may put clinicians in a dilemma. So far, several studies focusing on the comparison of CRT-D and CRT-P in all-cause mortality has been reported, which used Cox multivariate analysis or propensity score matching to minimize the influence of clinical differences between groups [6,[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19].Therefore, we aim to review those studies to clarify the association of all-cause mortality and additional ICD in patients receiving CRT, and optimize the management of patients based on characteristics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

the Benefits of Additional Defibrillator in Heart Failure Patients with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Meta-analysis of Observational Studies

Long¹,

Cui²,

Liu³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Current guidelines did not provide recommendations on indications of an additional implantable cardioverterdefibrillator (ICD) to patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and it still remains controversial due to lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Method: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL from the inception to May 2020 were systematically screened for studies reporting on the comparison of CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) and CRT-pacemaker (CRT-P), focusing on the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of all-cause mortality. We pooled the effects using a random-effect model. Results: Twenty-one studies encompassing 69919 patients were included in this meta-analysis. With no restriction to characteristics of including population, CRT-D was associated with a lower all-cause mortality compared with CRT-

show abstract

Cardiac resynchronization therapy using pacemakers vs defibrillators in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy: The United States experience from 2007 to 2014

Cited by 18 publications

References 17 publications

Trends in the use of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy device in advancing age: Analysis of the Japan cardiac device treatment registry database

Trends in the use of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy device in advancing age: Analysis of the Japan cardiac device treatment registry database

The benefits of defibrillator in heart failure patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy: A meta‐analysis

the Benefits of Additional Defibrillator in Heart Failure Patients with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Meta-analysis of Observational Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About