Long-term survival following upgrade compared with de novo cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation: a single-centre, high-volume experience.

AIMS: Patients with a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator are often considered for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, limited comprehensive data are available regarding their long-term outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Our retrospective registry included 2524 patients [1977 (78%) de novo, 547 (22%) upgrade patients] with mild to severe symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, and QRS ≥ 130ms. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, heart transplantation (HTX), or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation; secondary endpoints were death from any cause and post-procedural complications. In our cohort, upgrade patients were older [71 (65-77) vs. 67 (59-73) years; P < 0.001], were less frequently females (20% vs. 27%; P = 0.002) and had more comorbidities than de novo patients. During the median follow-up time of 3.7 years, 1091 (55%) de novo and 342 (63%) upgrade patients reached the primary endpoint. In univariable analysis, upgrade patients exhibited a higher risk of mortality/HTX/LVAD than the de novo group [hazard ratio (HR): 1.41; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23-1.61; P < 0.001]. However, this difference disappeared after adjusting for covariates (adjusted HR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.86-1.48; P = 0.402), or propensity score matching (propensity score-matched HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.95-1.29; P = 0.215). From device-related complications, lead dysfunction (3.1% vs. 1%; P < 0.001) and pocket infections (3.7% vs. 1.8%; P = 0.014) were more frequent in the upgrade group compared to de novo patients. CONCLUSION: In our retrospective analysis, upgrade patients had a higher risk of all-cause mortality than de novo patients, which might be attributable to their more significant comorbidity burden. The occurrence of lead dysfunction and pocket infections was more frequent in the upgrade group.

De novo implantation vs. upgrade cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Patients with conventional pacemakers or implanted defibrillators are often considered for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Our aim was to summarize the available evidences regarding the clinical benefits of upgrade procedures. A systematic literature search was performed from studies published between 2006 and 2017 in order to compare the outcome of CRT upgrade vs. de novo implantations. Outcome data on all-cause mortality, heart failure events, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class, QRS narrowing and echocardiographic parameters were analysed. A total of 16 reports were analysed comprising 489,568 CRT recipients, of whom 468,205 patients underwent de novo and 21,363 upgrade procedures. All-cause mortality was similar after CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.88-1.60, p = 0.27). The risk of heart failure was also similar in both groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70-1.32, p = 0.81). There was no significant difference in clinical response after CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations in terms of improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (ΔEF de novo - 6.85% vs. upgrade - 9.35%; p = 0.235), NYHA class (ΔNYHA de novo - 0.74 vs. upgrade - 0.70; p = 0.737) and QRS narrowing (ΔQRS de novo - 9.6 ms vs. upgrade - 29.5 ms; p = 0.485). Our systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available studies reports that CRT upgrade is associated with similar risk for all-cause mortality compared to de novo resynchronization therapy. Benefits on reverse remodelling and functional capacity improved similarly in both groups suggesting that CRT upgrade may be safely and effectively offered in routine practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero Database-CRD42016043747.

Comparison of de novo implantation vs. upgrade cardiac resynchronisation therapy: a multicentre experience.

BACKGROUND: The clinical safety and consequences of upgrade procedures compared with de novo cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) implantation in heart failure remain unclear. The present study aimed to assess clinical and procedural consequences of patients undergoing CRT upgrade as compared to de novo CRT implantations. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, two subgroups were considered as the study population as (1) de novo group that CRT was considered on optimised medical treatment with heart failure of NYHA functional class from II to IV, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≤35%, and QRS width of >130 ms and (2) upgrade group including the patients with previously implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) with the indications for upgrading to CRT. The two groups were compared regarding the changes in clinical outcome and echocardiography parameters. RESULTS: The procedure was successful in 95.9% of patients who underwent CRT upgrade and 100% of those who underwent de novo CRT implantation. It showed a significant improvement in LVEF, severity of mitral regurgitation and NYHA functional classification, without any difference between the two study groups. Overall procedural related complications were reported in 10.8% and 3.8% (p = .093) and cardiac death in 5.4% and 2.5% (p = .360), respectively, with no overall difference in postoperative outcome between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Upgrading to CRT is a safe and effective procedure regarding improvement of functional class, left ventricular function status and post-procedural outcome.