Cardiac resynchronization therapy in the real world: comparison with the COMPANION study.

BACKGROUND: Several clinical trials have confirmed that cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves outcomes in well defined patient populations. It is uncertain, however, whether outcomes are similar in real-world clinical settings. This study compared outcomes after CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) in a large real-world private-practice cardiology setting with those in the COMPANION multicenter trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 429 consecutive patients who received CRT-D for standard indications (group 1) were retrospectively compared with the 595 patients (group 3) in the COMPANION CRT-D cohort regarding survival and survival free of cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization. A subgroup of the group 1 patients who met the COMPANION entrance criteria (group 2) was also compared with the COMPANION cohort (group 3) both with and without propensity-matching statistical analysis. Survival and survival free of CV hospitalization was better in group 1 than in group 3. Survival in group 2 with and without propensity matching was similar to group 3. However, survival free of CV hospitalization was better in the real-world patients (group 2) even after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Survival and CV hospitalization outcomes in a real-world clinical setting are as good as, or better than, those demonstrated in the COMPANION research trial.

Torsion and dyssynchrony differences between chronically paced and non-paced heart failure patients.

BACKGROUND: Chronic right ventricular pacing may lead to left ventricular dyssynchrony, systolic dysfunction, remodeling, and heart failure. Cardiac mechanics may differ between paced and nonpaced heart failure patients, and their optimal treatment may also differ. METHODS AND RESULTS: Echocardiograms were analyzed using tissue Doppler imaging and speckle tracking echocardiography in 20 patients with chronic right ventricular pacing for complete heart block (RVP group), 29 nonpaced patients with different heart failure etiologies but ejection fractions similar to the RVP group (HF group), and 25 control subjects without pacemakers or heart failure (control group). Left ventricle volumes were smaller in RVP than HF (end-diastolic volume = 93.6 ± 25.1 mL vs. 112.1 ± 22.8 mL), but intraventricular longitudinal and radial dyssynchrony were similar. Dyssynchrony within the septum was greater (number of segments lengthening during systole = 1.9 ± 1.7 vs. 0.9 ± 1.8), systolic torsion was lower (6.2 ± 7.3° vs. 10.6 ± 4.2°), untwisting was delayed (time from peak torsion to peak untwist rate = 188 ± 141 ms vs. 102 ± 73 ms), and apical rotation was reversed in more subjects (35% vs 0%) in RVP than HF groups (P < .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Intraventricular dyssynchrony was similar between RVP and HF groups with similar ejection fraction. However, RVP subjects had smaller ventricles, greater dyssynchrony within the septum, lower torsion, altered apical rotation, and delayed untwisting.

Intramural dyssynchrony and response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with and without previous right ventricular pacing.

AIMS: Right ventricular (RV) pacing is an iatrogenic cause of heart failure (HF) that has not been well studied. We assessed whether HF patients paced from the right ventricle (RVp) adversely remodel and respond to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in a similar way to HF patients without right ventricular pacing (nRVp). METHODS AND RESULTS: Echocardiograms were performed before and ∼5 months after CRT in 31 RVp and 49 nRVp HF patients. Longitudinal intraventricular dyssynchrony using tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) was calculated as the standard deviation of time to peak systolic displacement by tissue tracking (SD-TT) of 12 segments. Longitudinal dyssynchrony within a wall (intramural dyssynchrony) was assessed by two methods: quantifying the number of segments with initial abnormal apical displacement (IMD score) and using a cross-correlation synchrony index (CCSI). Despite similar ejection fractions (EFs) of 28% prior to CRT, left ventricular end-diastolic volume was significantly smaller (143±54 vs. 183±62, P=0.004) in RVp. The standard deviation of time to peak systolic displacement by tissue tracking (83.4±34.9 vs. 67.9±26.6, P=0.03) and IMD score (3.1±1.8 vs. 1.3±1.7, P<0.001) were greater in RVp. Cardiac resynchronization therapy significantly improved EF and volumes in both groups. Ejection fraction increased more in RVp (12.8±9.2% vs. 7.4±7.6%, P=0.007). Intraventricular dyssynchrony and both measures of intramural septal dyssynchrony improved to a greater extent post-CRT in RVp. CONCLUSION: Right ventricular pacing patients differ from nRVp HF patients in that they have smaller ventricles and greater intraventricular and intramural septal dyssynchrony. Right ventricular pacing HF patients respond better to CRT with greater improvements in EF, and intraventricular and intramural septal dyssynchrony.