OBJECTIVE: The choice between a resynchronization pacemaker (CRT-P) or defibrillator (CRT-D) is still a matter of debate. We hypothesised that when selecting patients based on co-morbidities and age as proposed by the ESC-guidelines, there would be no long-term survival benefit of CRT-D compared to CRT-P. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who received a CRT device at the University Hospitals Leuven between 2001 and 2007. For the analysis of the association between predictors and outcome, uni- and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed. We present data from three multivariate models. RESULTS: A total of 144 CRT devices were implanted (CRT-D n=98, CRT-P n=46). Patients who received a CRT-P were older and had a higher prevalence of co-morbidities. Patients who received a CRT-D had a significant lower mortality. When applying incremental multivariate analysis using 1st variables with a P < 0.05 in univariate analysis, 2nd variables with a P < 0.10 and 3rd adding on top all the baseline variables that were significantly different between the two groups, the significance of a possible survival benefit for CRT-D over CRT-P disappeared: risk model 1, hazard ratio 2.21 (P = 0.008), risk model 2, HR 1.81 (P = 0.069), and risk model 3, HR 1.85 (P = 0.091). The use of amiodarone and the presence of COPD or renal insufficiency remained associated with a significant, higher mortality risk, while the use of beta blockers was protective in all three models. CONCLUSION: The choice of a CRT-D seemed a predictor of improved survival in simple but not in more complex multivariable analyses. The fact that the survival benefit strongly depended on the number of co-variables suggests that it is at most marginal.
OBJECTIVE: The choice between a resynchronization pacemaker (CRT-P) or defibrillator (CRT-D) is still a matter of debate. We hypothesised that when selecting patients based on co-morbidities and age as proposed by the ESC-guidelines, there would be no long-term survival benefit of CRT-D compared to CRT-P. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who received a CRT device at the University Hospitals Leuven between 2001 and 2007. For the analysis of the association between predictors and outcome, uni- and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed. We present data from three multivariate models. RESULTS: A total of 144 CRT devices were implanted (CRT-D n=98, CRT-P n=46). Patients who received a CRT-P were older and had a higher prevalence of co-morbidities. Patients who received a CRT-D had a significant lower mortality. When applying incremental multivariate analysis using 1st variables with a P < 0.05 in univariate analysis, 2nd variables with a P < 0.10 and 3rd adding on top all the baseline variables that were significantly different between the two groups, the significance of a possible survival benefit for CRT-D over CRT-P disappeared: risk model 1, hazard ratio 2.21 (P = 0.008), risk model 2, HR 1.81 (P = 0.069), and risk model 3, HR 1.85 (P = 0.091). The use of amiodarone and the presence of COPD or renal insufficiency remained associated with a significant, higher mortality risk, while the use of beta blockers was protective in all three models. CONCLUSION: The choice of a CRT-D seemed a predictor of improved survival in simple but not in more complex multivariable analyses. The fact that the survival benefit strongly depended on the number of co-variables suggests that it is at most marginal.
Authors: Abdolreza Rajaeefard; Mohammad Ghorbani; Mohammad Ali Babaee Baigi; Hamidreza Tabatabae Journal: Iran Red Crescent Med J Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 0.611