Emergent role of dynamic optimization in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

AIMS: Suboptimal device programming is frequent in non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, the role of device optimization and the most appropriate technique are still unknown. The aim of our study was to analyse the effect of different CRT optimization techniques within a network meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL for studies comparing outcomes with empirical device settings or optimization using echocardiography, static algorithms or dynamic algorithms. Studies investigating the effect of optimization in non-responders were also analysed. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies with 4346 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Of the treatments and outcomes examined, a significant difference was found only between dynamic algorithms and echocardiography, with the former leading to a higher echocardiographic response rate [odds ratio (OR): 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21-3.35], lower heart failure hospitalization rate (OR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.57-0.99) and greater improvement in 6-minute walk test [mean difference (MD): 45.52 m, 95% credible interval (CrI) 3.91-82.44 m]. We found no significant difference between empirical settings, static algorithms and dynamic algorithms. Seven studies with 228 patients reported response rates after optimization in non-responders. Altogether, 34.3%-66.7% of initial non-responders showed improvement after optimization, depending on response criteria. CONCLUSIONS: At the time of CRT implantation, dynamic algorithms may serve as a resource-friendly alternative to echocardiographic optimization, with similar or better mid-term outcomes. However, their superiority over empirical device settings needs to be investigated in further trials. For non-responders, CRT optimization should be considered, as the majority of patients experience improvement.

Apixaban vs Aspirin According to CHA2DS2-VASc Score in Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation: Insights From ARTESiA.

BACKGROUND: ARTESiA (Apixaban for the Reduction of Thrombo-Embolism in Patients With Device-Detected Sub-Clinical Atrial Fibrillation) demonstrated that apixaban, compared with aspirin, significantly reduced stroke and systemic embolism (SE) but increased major bleeding in patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation. OBJECTIVES: To help inform decision making, the authors evaluated the efficacy and safety of apixaban according to baseline CHA2DS2-VASc score. METHODS: We performed a subgroup analysis according to baseline CHA2DS2-VASc score and assessed both the relative and absolute differences in stroke/SE and major bleeding. RESULTS: Baseline CHA2DS2-VASc scores were <4 in 1,578 (39.4%) patients, 4 in 1,349 (33.6%), and >4 in 1,085 (27.0%). For patients with CHA2DS2-VASc >4, the rate of stroke was 0.98%/year with apixaban and 2.25%/year with aspirin; compared with aspirin, apixaban prevented 1.28 (95% CI: 0.43-2.12) strokes/SE per 100 patient-years and caused 0.68 (95% CI: -0.23 to 1.57) major bleeds. For CHA2DS2-VASc <4, the stroke/SE rate was 0.85%/year with apixaban and 0.97%/year with aspirin. Apixaban prevented 0.12 (95% CI: -0.38 to 0.62) strokes/SE per 100 patient-years and caused 0.33 (95% CI: -0.27 to 0.92) major bleeds. For patients with CHA2DS2-VASc =4, apixaban prevented 0.32 (95% CI: -0.16 to 0.79) strokes/SE per 100 patient-years and caused 0.28 (95% CI: -0.30 to 0.86) major bleeds. CONCLUSIONS: One in 4 patients in ARTESiA with subclinical atrial fibrillation had a CHA2DS2-VASc score >4 and a stroke/SE risk of 2.2% per year. For these patients, the benefits of treatment with apixaban in preventing stroke/SE are greater than the risks. The opposite is true for patients with CHA2DS2-VASc score <4. A substantial intermediate group (CHA2DS2-VASc =4) exists in which patient preferences will inform treatment decisions. (Apixaban for the Reduction of Thrombo-Embolism in Patients With Device-Detected Sub-Clinical Atrial Fibrillation; NCT01938248).

Benefits of upgrading right ventricular to biventricular pacing in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Recommendations on cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF) are based on less robust evidence than those in sinus rhythm (SR). We aimed to assess the efficacy of CRT upgrade in the BUDAPEST-CRT Upgrade trial population by their baseline rhythm. METHODS AND RESULTS: Heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and previously implanted pacemaker (PM) or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and ≥20% right ventricular (RV) pacing burden were randomized to CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) upgrade (n = 215) or ICD (n = 145). Primary [HF hospitalization (HFH), all-cause mortality, or <15% reduction of left ventricular end-systolic volume] and secondary outcomes were investigated. At enrolment, 131 (36%) patients had AF, who had an increased risk for HFH as compared with those with SR [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 2.99; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26-7.13; P = 0.013]. The effect of CRT-D upgrade was similar in patients with AF as in those with SR [AF adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.06; 95% CI 0.02-0.17; P < 0.001; SR aOR 0.13; 95% CI 0.07-0.27; P < 0.001; interaction P = 0.29] during the mean follow-up time of 12.4 months. Also, it decreased the risk of HFH or all-cause mortality (aHR 0.33; 95% CI 0.16-0.70; P = 0.003; interaction P = 0.17) and improved the echocardiographic response (left ventricular end-diastolic volume difference -49.21 mL; 95% CI -69.10 to -29.32; P < 0.001; interaction P = 0.21). CONCLUSION: In HFrEF patients with AF and PM/ICD with high RV pacing burden, CRT-D upgrade decreased the risk of HFH and improved reverse remodelling when compared with ICD, similar to that seen in patients in SR.

Key influences of VDD (DX) ICD selection: Results from a prospective, national survey.

BACKGROUND: To preserve the benefit of atrial sensing without the implantation of an additional lead, a single-lead ICD system with a floating atrial dipole (DX ICD) has been developed. The purpose of this nationwide survey was to provide an overview of the current key influences of device selection focusing on DX ICD and to test the applicability of a previously published decision-making flowchart of ICD-type selection. METHODS: An online questionnaire was sent to all implanting centers in Hungary. Eleven centers reported data from 361 DX ICD and 10 CRT-DX systems implantations between February 2021 and May 2023. RESULTS: The most important influencing clinical factors indicated by the participating doctors were elevated risk of atrial fibrillation (AF)/stroke (56%), risk of sinus/supraventricular tachycardias (SVT) (42%), and a potential need for CRT upgrade in the future (36%). The DX ICD was considered in the majority of cases instead of the VVI system (87%), and only in a small proportion instead of a DDD ICD (13%). 60% of the patients with DX ICDs were also included into remote monitoring-based follow-up. In 83% of the cases, good (>2 mV) or excellent (>5) atrial signal amplitude was recorded within 6 weeks after the implantation. CONCLUSION: In the current national survey, the most important influencing factors indicated by the implanters for selecting a DX ICD were the elevated risk of stroke or sinus/SVT and a potential need for CRT upgrade in the future. These findings support the use of a previously published decision-making flowchart.

Clinical Impact of Digitalis Therapy in a Large Multicenter Cohort of CRT-Recipients.

(1) Introduction: Digitalis use in patients with severe heart failure is controversial. We assessed the effects of digitalis therapy on mortality in a large, observational study in recipients of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). (2) Methods: Consecutive patients receiving a CRT-defibrillator in three European tertiary referral centers were enrolled and followed-up for a mean 37 months ± 28 months. Digitalis use was assessed at the time of CRT implantation. A multivariate Cox-regression model and propensity score matching were used to determine all-cause mortality as the primary endpoint. CRT-response (defined as improvement of ≥1 NYHA class), echocardiographic improvement (defined as improvement of LVEF of ≥ 5%) and incidence of ICD shocks and rehospitalization were assessed as secondary endpoints in a subgroup of patients. (3) Results: The study comprised 552 CRT-recipients with standard indications, including 219 patients (40%) treated with digitalis. Compared to patients without digitalis, they had more often atrial fibrillation, poorer LVEF and a higher NYHA class (all p ≤ 0.002). Crude analysis of all-cause mortality demonstrated a similar relative risk of death for patients with and without digitalis (HR = 1.14; 95% CI 0.88-1.5; p = 0.40). After adjustment for independent predictors of mortality, digitalis therapy did not alter the risk for death (adjusted HR = 1.04; 95% CI 0.75-1.45; p = 0.82). Furthermore, in comparison to 286 propensity-score-matched patients, mortality was not affected by digitalis intake (propensity-adjusted HR = 1.11; 95% CI 0.72-1.70; p = 0.64). A CRT-response was predominant in digitalis non-users, concerning both improvement of HF symptoms and LVEF (NYHA p < 0.01; LVEF p < 0.01), while patients on digitalis had more often ventricular tachyarrhythmias requiring ICD shock (p = 0.01); although, rehospitalization for cardiac reasons was significantly lower among digitalis users compared to digitalis non-users (HR = 0.58; 95% C. I. 0.40-0.85; p = 0.01). (4) Conclusions: Digitalis therapy had no effect on mortality, but was associated with a reduced response to CRT and increased susceptibility to ventricular arrhythmias requiring ICD shock treatment. Although, digitalis administration positively altered the likelihood for cardiac rehospitalization during follow-up.

The effect of kidney function on guideline-directed medical therapy implementation and prognosis in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Kidney dysfunction (KD) is a main limiting factor of applying guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and reaching the recommended target doses (TD) in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to assess the success of optimization, long-term applicability, and adherence of neurohormonal antagonist triple therapy (TT:RASi [ACEi/ARB/ARNI] + ßB + MRA) according to the KD after a HF hospitalization and to investigate its impact on prognosis. METHODS: The data of 247 real-world, consecutive patients were analyzed who were hospitalized in 2019-2021 for HFrEF and then were followed-up for 1 year. The application and the ratio of reached TD of TT at hospital discharge and at 1 year were assessed comparing KD categories (eGFR: ≥90, 60-89, 45-59, 30-44, <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 ). Moreover, 1-year all-cause mortality and rehospitalization rates in KD subgroups were investigated. RESULTS: Majority of the patients received TT at hospital discharge (77%) and at 1 year (73%). More severe KD led to a lower application ratio (p < .05) of TT (92%, 88%, 80%, 73%, 31%) at discharge and at 1 year (81%, 76%, 76%, 68%, 40%). Patients with more severe KD were less likely (p < .05) to receive TD of MRA (81%, 68%, 78%, 61%, 52%) at discharge and a RASi (53%, 49%, 45%, 21%, 27%) at 1 year. One-year all-cause mortality (14%, 15%, 16%, 33%, 48%, p < .001), the ratio of all-cause rehospitalizations (30%, 35%, 40%, 43%, 52%, p = .028), and rehospitalizations for HF (8%, 13%, 18%, 20%, 38%, p = .001) were significantly higher in more severe KD categories. CONCLUSIONS: KD unfavorably affects the application of TT in HFrEF, however poorer mortality and rehospitalization rates among them highlight the role of the conscious implementation and up-titration of GDMT.

The Impact of Specialised Heart Failure Outpatient Care on the Long-Term Application of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy and on Prognosis in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.

(1) Background: Besides the use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), multidisciplinary heart failure (HF) outpatient care (HFOC) is of strategic importance in HFrEF. (2) Methods: Data from 257 hospitalised HFrEF patients between 2019 and 2021 were retrospectively analysed. Application and target doses of GDMT were compared between HFOC and non-HFOC patients at discharge and at 1 year. 1-year all-cause mortality (ACM) and rehospitalisation (ACH) rates were compared using the Cox proportional hazard model. The effect of HFOC on GDMT and on prognosis after propensity score matching (PSM) of 168 patients and the independent predictors of 1-year ACM and ACH were also evaluated. (3) Results: At 1 year, the application of RASi, MRA and triple therapy (TT: RASi + ßB + MRA) was higher (p < 0.05) in the HFOC group, as was the proportion of target doses of ARNI, ßB, MRA and TT. After PSM, the composite of 1-year ACM or ACH was more favourable with HFOC (propensity-adjusted HR = 0.625, 95% CI = 0.401-0.974, p = 0.038). Independent predictors of 1-year ACM were age, systolic blood pressure, application of TT and HFOC, while 1-year ACH was influenced by the application of TT. (4) Conclusions: HFOC may positively impact GDMT use and prognosis in HFrEF even within the first year of its initiation.