BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is effective in reducing clinical events in systolic heart failure patients with a wide QRS. Previous retrospective studies suggest only patients with QRS prolongation due to a left bundle-branch block (LBBB) benefit from CRT. Our objective was to examine this by performing a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials of CRT. METHODS: Systematic searches of MEDLINE and the Food and Drug Administration official website were conducted for randomized controlled CRT trials. Trials reporting adverse clinical events (eg, all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalizations) according to QRS morphology were included in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Four randomized trials totaling 5,356 patients met the inclusion criteria. In patients with LBBB at baseline, there was a highly significant reduction in composite adverse clinical events with CRT (RR = 0.64 [95% CI (0.52-0.77)], P = .00001). However no such benefit was observed for patients with non-LBBB conduction abnormalities (RR = 0.97 [95% CI (0.82-1.15)], P = .75). When examined separately, there was no benefit in patients with right-bundle branch block (RR = 0.91 [95% CI (0.69-1.20)], P = .49) or non-specific intraventricular conduction delay (RR = 1.19 [95% CI (0.87-1.63)], P = .28). There was no heterogeneity among the clinical trials with regards to the lack of benefit in non-LBBB patients (I(2) = 0%). When directly compared, the difference in effect of CRT between LBBB versus non-LBBB patients was highly statistically significant (P = .0001 by heterogeneity analysis). CONCLUSIONS: While CRT was very effective in reducing clinical events in patients with LBBB, it did not reduce such events in patients with wide QRS due to other conduction abnormalities.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is effective in reducing clinical events in systolic heart failurepatients with a wide QRS. Previous retrospective studies suggest only patients with QRS prolongation due to a left bundle-branch block (LBBB) benefit from CRT. Our objective was to examine this by performing a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials of CRT. METHODS: Systematic searches of MEDLINE and the Food and Drug Administration official website were conducted for randomized controlled CRT trials. Trials reporting adverse clinical events (eg, all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalizations) according to QRS morphology were included in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Four randomized trials totaling 5,356 patients met the inclusion criteria. In patients with LBBB at baseline, there was a highly significant reduction in composite adverse clinical events with CRT (RR = 0.64 [95% CI (0.52-0.77)], P = .00001). However no such benefit was observed for patients with non-LBBB conduction abnormalities (RR = 0.97 [95% CI (0.82-1.15)], P = .75). When examined separately, there was no benefit in patients with right-bundle branch block (RR = 0.91 [95% CI (0.69-1.20)], P = .49) or non-specific intraventricular conduction delay (RR = 1.19 [95% CI (0.87-1.63)], P = .28). There was no heterogeneity among the clinical trials with regards to the lack of benefit in non-LBBB patients (I(2) = 0%). When directly compared, the difference in effect of CRT between LBBB versus non-LBBB patients was highly statistically significant (P = .0001 by heterogeneity analysis). CONCLUSIONS: While CRT was very effective in reducing clinical events in patients with LBBB, it did not reduce such events in patients with wide QRS due to other conduction abnormalities.
Authors: Kenneth Dickstein; Alain Cohen-Solal; Gerasimos Filippatos; John J V McMurray; Piotr Ponikowski; Philip Alexander Poole-Wilson; Anna Strömberg; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Dan Atar; Arno W Hoes; Andre Keren; Alexandre Mebazaa; Markku Nieminen; Silvia Giuliana Priori; Karl Swedberg Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2008-09-16 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: John Rickard; Dharam J Kumbhani; Eiran Z Gorodeski; Bryan Baranowski; Oussama Wazni; David O Martin; Richard Grimm; Bruce L Wilkoff Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Anita Wokhlu; Robert F Rea; Samuel J Asirvatham; Tracy Webster; Kelly Brooke; David O Hodge; Heather J Wiste; Yingxue Dong; David L Hayes; Yong-Mei Cha Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2009-07-10 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Melissa J Byrne; Robert H Helm; Samantapudi Daya; Nael F Osman; Henry R Halperin; Ronald D Berger; David A Kass; Albert C Lardo Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-09-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Finlay A McAlister; Justin Ezekowitz; Nicola Hooton; Ben Vandermeer; Carol Spooner; Donna M Dryden; Richard L Page; Mark A Hlatky; Brian H Rowe Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-06-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Renaud Gervais; Christophe Leclercq; Aparna Shankar; Sandra Jacobs; Hans Eiskjaer; Arne Johannessen; Nick Freemantle; John G F Cleland; Luigi Tavazzi; Claude Daubert Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2009-06-07 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Arthur J Moss; W Jackson Hall; David S Cannom; Helmut Klein; Mary W Brown; James P Daubert; N A Mark Estes; Elyse Foster; Henry Greenberg; Steven L Higgins; Marc A Pfeffer; Scott D Solomon; David Wilber; Wojciech Zareba Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-09-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Varun Sundaram; Jayakumar Sahadevan; Albert L Waldo; George J Stukenborg; Yogesh N V Reddy; Samuel J Asirvatham; Judith A Mackall; Anselma Intini; Brigid Wilson; Daniel I Simon; Kenneth C Bilchick Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Robbert Zusterzeel; Kimberly A Selzman; William E Sanders; Kathryn M O'Callaghan; Daniel A Caños; Kevin Vernooy; Frits W Prinzen; Anton P M Gorgels; David G Strauss Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 4.132