RESUMO
AIMS: Patients with obesity have an overall higher cardiovascular risk, at the same time obesity could be associated with a better outcome in a certain subgroup of patients, a phenomenon known as the obesity paradox. Data are scarce in candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to investigate the association between body mass index (BMI) and all-cause mortality in patients eligible for CRT. METHODS: Altogether 1,585 patients underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy between 2000-2020 and were categorized based on their BMI, 459 (29%) patients with normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m2), 641 (40%) patients with overweight (BMI 25- < 30 kg/m2) and 485 (31%) with obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, heart transplantation, and left ventricular assist device implantation. We assessed periprocedural complications and 6-month echocardiographic response. RESULTS: Normal-weight patients were older compared to patients with overweight or obesity (70 years vs. 69 years vs. 68 years; P 2 26% vs. BMI 25- < 30 kg/m2 37% vs. BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 48%; P 2 71% vs. BMI 25- < 30 kg/m2 74% vs. BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 82%; P 2 group, 61% in the BMI 25- < 30 kg/m2 group and 58% in the BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 group (log-rank P2 25% vs. BMI 25- < 30 kg/m2 28% vs. BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 26%; P = 0.48). Left ventricular ejection fraction improved significantly in all patient groups (BMI < 25 kg/m2 median ∆ $$ \Delta $$ -LVEF 7% vs. BMI 25- < 30 kg/m2 median ∆ $$ \Delta $$ -LVEF 7.5% vs. BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 median ∆ $$ \Delta $$ -LVEF 6%; P < 0.0001) with a similar proportion of developing reverse remodeling (BMI < 25 kg/m2 58% vs. BMI 25- < 30 kg/m2 61% vs. BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 57%; P = 0.48); P = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: The obesity paradox was present in our HF cohort at long-term, patients underwent CRT implantation with obesity and free of comorbidities showed mortality benefit compared to normal weight patients. Patients with obesity showed similar echocardiographic response and safety outcomes compared to normal weight patients.
RESUMO
Aims: Primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in non-ischemic heart failure (HF) patients remains a topic of debate at cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation requiring individual risk assessment. Using the Goldenberg SCD risk score, we aimed to predict, which non-ischemic HF patients will benefit from the addition of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) to CRT at long-term. Methods: Between 2000 and 2018 non-ischemic HF patients undergoing CRT implantation were collected into our retrospective registry. The Goldenberg risk score (GRS) was calculated by the presence of atrial fibrillation, New York Heat Association (NYHA) class > 2, age > 70 years, blood urea nitrogen > 26 mg/dl and QRS > 120 ms. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, heart transplantation or left ventricular assist device implantation. Results: From 667 patients, 347 (52%) underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker (CRT-P), 320 (48%) cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) implantations. During the median follow up time of 4.3 years, 306 (46%) patients reached the primary endpoint (CRT-D 37% vs. CRT-P 63%; p < 0.001). CRT-D patients were younger (64 vs. 69 years; p < 0.001), infrequently females (26 vs. 39%; p < 0.001), and had a lower ejection fraction (27 vs. 29%; p < 0.01) compared to CRT-P patients. After GRS calculation, patients were dichotomized by low (< 3) and high (≥ 3) scores. CRT-D patients with low GRS showed a mortality benefit compared to CRT-P (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.48-0.96; p = 0.03), high-risk patients did not (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.62-1.13; p = 0.26). Conclusion: In our non-ischemic cohort, patients with low GRS showed a clear long-term mortality benefit by adding ICD to CRT, however, in high-risk patients no further benefit could be observed.