Causes-of-death analysis of patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy: an analysis of the CeRtiTuDe cohort study.

AIMS: The choice of resynchronization therapy between with (CRT-D) and without (CRT-P) a defibrillator remains a contentious issue. Cause-of-death analysis among CRT-P, compared with CRT-D, patients could help evaluate the extent to which CRT-P patients would have additionally benefited from a defibrillator in a daily clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1705 consecutive patients implanted with a CRT (CRT-P: 535 and CRT-D: 1170) between 2008 and 2010 were enrolled in CeRtiTuDe, a multicentric prospective follow-up cohort study, with specific adjudication for causes of death at 2 years. Patients with CRT-P compared with CRT-D were older (P < 0.0001), less often male (P < 0.0001), more symptomatic (P = 0.0005), with less coronary artery disease (P = 0.003), wider QRS (P = 0.002), more atrial fibrillation (P < 0.0001), and more co-morbidities (P = 0.04). At 2-year follow-up, the annual overall mortality rate was 83.80 [95% confidence interval (CI) 73.41-94.19] per 1000 person-years. The crude mortality rate among CRT-P patients was double compared with CRT-D (relative risk 2.01, 95% CI 1.56-2.58). In a Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, CRT-P remained associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio 1.54, 95% CI 1.07-2.21, P = 0.0209), although other potential confounders may persist. By cause-of-death analysis, 95% of the excess mortality among CRT-P subjects was related to an increase in non-sudden death. CONCLUSION: When compared with CRT-D patients, excess mortality in CRT-P recipients was mainly due to non-sudden death. Our findings suggest that CRT-P patients, as currently selected in routine clinical practice, would not potentially benefit with the addition of a defibrillator.

Development and validation of a novel algorithm based on the ECG magnet response for rapid identification of any unknown pacemaker.

BACKGROUND: Pacemaker (PM) interrogation requires correct manufacturer identification. However, an unidentified PM is a frequent occurrence, requiring time-consuming steps to identify the device. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a novel algorithm for PM manufacturer identification, using the ECG response to magnet application. METHODS: Data on the magnet responses of all recent PM models (≤15 years) from the 5 major manufacturers were collected. An algorithm based on the ECG response to magnet application to identify the PM manufacturer was subsequently developed. Patients undergoing ECG during magnet application in various clinical situations were prospectively recruited in 7 centers. The algorithm was applied in the analysis of every ECG by a cardiologist blinded to PM information. A second blinded cardiologist analyzed a sample of randomly selected ECGs in order to assess the reproducibility of the results. RESULTS: A total of 250 ECGs were analyzed during magnet application. The algorithm led to the correct single manufacturer choice in 242 ECGs (96.8%), whereas 7 (2.8%) could only be narrowed to either 1 of 2 manufacturer possibilities. Only 2 (0.4%) incorrect manufacturer identifications occurred. The algorithm identified Medtronic and Sorin Group PMs with 100% sensitivity and specificity, Biotronik PMs with 100% sensitivity and 99.5% specificity, and St. Jude and Boston Scientific PMs with 92% sensitivity and 100% specificity. The results were reproducible between the 2 blinded cardiologists with 92% concordant findings. CONCLUSION: Unknown PM manufacturers can be accurately identified by analyzing the ECG magnet response using this newly developed algorithm.