RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Revision to cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) in patients with existing pacemakers with worsening heart failure (HF) can improve symptoms and cardiac function. We identify factors that predict improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) within a year of CRT revision. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 146 consecutive patients (16% female, mean age 73 ± 11 years, mean LVEF 27 ± 8%) undergoing revision to CRT (January 2012 to May 2018) in a single tertiary centre. LVEF was measured pre-revision and 3, 6 and 12 months post-upgrade. RESULTS: At 6 months, 68% of patients demonstrated improvement in LVEF (mean ΔLVEF + 6.7% ± 9.6). Compared to patients in atrial fibrillation (AF), patients with sinus rhythm had a greater improvement in LVEF at 6 months (sinus 8.4 ± 10.3% vs. AF 4.2 ± 8.0%, p = 0.02). Compared to ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) had a greater improvement in LVEF at 6 months (NICM 8.4 ± 9.8% vs ICM 4.8 ± 9.2%, p = 0.05). Patients with RV pacing ≥40% at baseline had a greater improvement in LVEF at 6 months (≥40% RV pacing 9.3 ± 10.2 vs. < 40% RV pacing 4.0 ± 7.4%, p = 0.01). All improvements were sustained over 12 months post-revision. There was no significant difference between genders, years between initial implant and revision, or previous device type. CONCLUSIONS: Our real-world experience supports current guidelines on CRT revision. NICM, ≥40% RV pacing and sinus rhythm are the main predictors of improvement in LVEF in patients who underwent CRT revision.
RESUMO
A multivariate risk score model was proposed by Sieira et al in 2017 for sudden death in Brugada syndrome; their validation in 150 patients was highly encouraging, with a C-index of 0.81; however, this score is yet to be validated by an independent group. A total of 192 records of patients with Brugada syndrome were collected from 2 centers in the United Kingdom and retrospectively scored according to a score model by Sieira et al. Data were compiled summatively over follow-up to mimic regular risk re-evaluation as per current guidelines. Sudden cardiac death survivor data were considered perievent to ascertain the utility of the score before cardiac arrest. Scores were compared with actual outcomes. Sensitivity in our cohort was 22.7%, specificity was 57.6%, and C-index was 0.58. In conclusion, up to 75% of cardiac arrest survivors in this cohort would not have been offered a defibrillator if evaluated before their event. This casts doubt on the utility of the score model for primary prevention of sudden death. Inherent issues with modern risk scoring strategies decrease the likelihood of success even in robustly designed tools such as the Sieira score model.