David Birnie1, Harrison Hudnall2, Bernd Lemke3, Kazutaka Aonuma4, Kathy Lai-Fun Lee5, Maurizio Gasparini6, John Gorcsan7, Jeffrey Cerkvenik2, David O Martin8. 1. University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Canada. Electronic address: dbirnie@ottawaheart.ca. 2. Medtronic, Mounds View, Minnesota. 3. Lüdenscheid Clinic, Lüdenscheid, Germany. 4. Tsukuba University Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan. 5. University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 6. Istituto Clinico Humanitas Mirasole-Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy. 7. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 8. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data from randomized trials have suggested a modest or no effect of conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (convCRT) on the incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF). AdaptivCRT (aCRT, Medtronic, Mounds View, MN) is a recently described algorithm for synchronized left ventricular (LV) pacing and continuous optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). OBJECTIVE: We compared the long-term effects of aCRT with convCRT pacing on the incidence of AF. METHODS: The Adaptive CRT trial randomized CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D)-indicated patients (2:1) to receive either aCRT or convCRT pacing. The aCRT algorithm evaluates intrinsic conduction every minute, providing LV-only pacing during normal atrioventricular (AV) conduction and AV and ventriculoventricular timing adjustments during prolonged AV conduction. The primary outcome of this subanalysis was an episode of AF >48 consecutive hours as detected by device diagnostics. RESULTS: Over a follow-up period with a mean and standard deviation of 20.2 ± 5.9 months, 8.7% of patients with aCRT and 16.2% with convCRT experienced the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.31-0.93; P = .03). In patients with prolonged baseline AV, the incidence of the primary outcome was 12.8% in patients randomized to aCRT compared with 27.4% in convCRT patients (HR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.24-0.85; P = .01). Also, patients with AF episodes adjudicated as clinical adverse events were less common with aCRT (4.3%) than with convCRT (12.7%) (HR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.19-0.79; P = .01). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving aCRT had a reduced risk of AF compared with those receiving convCRT. Most of the reduction in AF occurred in subgroups with prolonged AV conduction at baseline and with significant left atrial reverse remodeling.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Data from randomized trials have suggested a modest or no effect of conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (convCRT) on the incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF). AdaptivCRT (aCRT, Medtronic, Mounds View, MN) is a recently described algorithm for synchronized left ventricular (LV) pacing and continuous optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). OBJECTIVE: We compared the long-term effects of aCRT with convCRT pacing on the incidence of AF. METHODS: The Adaptive CRT trial randomized CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D)-indicated patients (2:1) to receive either aCRT or convCRT pacing. The aCRT algorithm evaluates intrinsic conduction every minute, providing LV-only pacing during normal atrioventricular (AV) conduction and AV and ventriculoventricular timing adjustments during prolonged AV conduction. The primary outcome of this subanalysis was an episode of AF >48 consecutive hours as detected by device diagnostics. RESULTS: Over a follow-up period with a mean and standard deviation of 20.2 ± 5.9 months, 8.7% of patients with aCRT and 16.2% with convCRT experienced the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.31-0.93; P = .03). In patients with prolonged baseline AV, the incidence of the primary outcome was 12.8% in patients randomized to aCRT compared with 27.4% in convCRT patients (HR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.24-0.85; P = .01). Also, patients with AF episodes adjudicated as clinical adverse events were less common with aCRT (4.3%) than with convCRT (12.7%) (HR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.19-0.79; P = .01). CONCLUSION:Patients receiving aCRT had a reduced risk of AF compared with those receiving convCRT. Most of the reduction in AF occurred in subgroups with prolonged AV conduction at baseline and with significant left atrial reverse remodeling.
Authors: Osmar Antonio Centurión; Karina Elizabeth Scavenius; Laura B García; Luis Miño; Judith Torales; Orlando Sequeira Journal: J Atr Fibrillation Date: 2018-06-30
Authors: Niraj Varma; David O'Donnell; Mohammed Bassiouny; Philippe Ritter; Carlo Pappone; Jan Mangual; Daniel Cantillon; Nima Badie; Bernard Thibault; Brian Wisnoskey Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Kazi T Haq; Nichole M Rogovoy; Jason A Thomas; Christopher Hamilton; Katherine J Lutz; Ashley Wirth; Aron B Bender; David M German; Ryle Przybylowicz; Peter van Dam; Thomas A Dewland; Khidir Dalouk; Eric Stecker; Babak Nazer; Peter M Jessel; Karen S MacMurdy; Ignatius Gerardo E Zarraga; Bassel Beitinjaneh; Charles A Henrikson; Merritt Raitt; Cristina Fuss; Maros Ferencik; Larisa G Tereshchenko Journal: Heart Rhythm O2 Date: 2021-06-29
Authors: Shaun Giancaterino; Marin Nishimura; Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green; Kurt S Hoffmayer; Frederick T Han; Farshad Raissi; Gordon Ho; David Krummen; Gregory K Feld; Jonathan C Hsu Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2020-05-02 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Ahmed AlTurki; Pedro Y Lima; Martin L Bernier; Daniel Garcia; Alejandro Vidal; Bruno Toscani; Sergio Diaz; Mauricio Montemezzo; Alaa Al-Dossari; Tomy Hadjis; Jacqueline Joza; Vidal Essebag Journal: CJC Open Date: 2020-01-21