RESUMEN
AIMS: Cardiac implantable electrical devices such as cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-Ds) or cardiac contractility modulation (CCMs) are therapy options for patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) despite optimal medical treatment. As yet, a comparison between both devices has not been performed. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Mannheim Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Registry (MARACANA) and the Mannheim Cardiac Contractility Modulation Observational Study (MAINTAINED) included all patients who received CRTs or CCMs in our medical centre between 2012 and 2021. For the present analysis, we retrospectively compared patients provided with either CRT-Ds (n = 220) or CCMs with additional defibrillators (n = 105) regarding New York Heart Association classification (NYHA), LVEF, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), QRS-width and other HF modification aspects after 12 months. Before implantation, CCM patients presented with lower LVEF (23.6 ± 6.2 vs. 26.3 ± 6.5%) and worse NYHA (3.03 ± 0.47 vs. 2.81 ± 0.48, both P < 0.05), compared with CRT-D patients. Follow-up improvements in NYHA (2.43 ± 0.67 vs. 2.28 ± 0.72), LVEF (30.5 ± 10.7 vs. 35.2 ± 10.5%) and TAPSE (17.2 ± 5.2 vs. 17.1 ± 4.8 to 18.9 ± 3.4 vs. 17.3 ± 3.6 mm, each P < 0.05) were comparable. The intrinsic QRS-width was stable with CCM (109.1 ± 18 vs. 111.7 ± 19.7 ms, P > 0.05), while the paced QRS-width with CRT-D after 12 months was lower than intrinsic values at baseline (157.5 ± 16.5 vs. 139.2 ± 16 ms, P < 0.05). HF hospitalizations occurred more often for CCM than CRT-D patients (45.7 vs. 16.8%/patient years, odds ratio 4.2, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Chronic heart failure patients could experience comparable 12-month improvements in functional status and ventricular reverse remodelling, with appropriately implanted CCMs and CRT-Ds. Differences in HF hospitalization rates may be due to the more advanced HF of CCM patients at implantation.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) can be necessary in patients with chronic heart failure, who have already been provided with transvenous cardiac implantable electrical devices. Upgrade procedures revealed controversial results, while long-term outcomes regarding underlying Ischaemic- (ICM) or Non-Ischaemic heart disease (NICM) have yet to be described. METHODS: The Mannheim Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy Registry (MARACANA) was designed as a retrospective observational single-centre registry, including all CRT implantations from 2013-2021 (n = 459). CRT upgrades (n = 136) were retrospectively grouped to either ICM (n = 84) or NICM (n = 52) and compared for New York Heart Association classification (NYHA), paced QRS-width, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) and other heart failure modification aspects in the long-term (59.3 ± 5 months). RESULTS: Baseline-characteristics including paced QRS-width, upgrade indications or NYHA-classification were comparable for both groups (group comparison p>.05). The CRT upgrade improved NYHA (ICM: 2.98 ± 0.4 to 2.29 ± 0.7, NICM: 2.94 ± 0.5 to 2.08 ± 0.5) and the LVEF (ICM: 27.2 ± 6.6 to 38.25 ± 8.8, NICM: 30.2 ± 9.4 to 38.7 ± 13.8%) after five years, irrespective of underlying heart disease (each group p < .05, group comparison p>.05). Only ICM revealed significant improvements in TAPSE (15.9 ± 4.1 to 18.9 ± 4.1 mm) and narrowing of the paced QRS-width (185.4 ± 29 to 147.2 ± 16.3 ms) after five years (each p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Upgrade to CRT might improve heart failure symptoms and left-ventricular systolic function in the long-term, irrespective of underlying ischaemic or non-ischaemic heart disease.