PURPOSE: Renal dysfunction is often associated with chronic heart failure, leading to increased morbi-mortality. However, data regarding these patients after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is sparse. We sought to evaluate response and long-term mortality in patients with heart failure and renal dysfunction and assess renal improvement after CRT. METHODS: We analyzed 178 consecutive patients who underwent successful CRT device implantation (age 64 ± 11 years; 69% male; 92% in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class ≥ III; 34% with ischemic cardiomyopathy). Echocardiographic response was defined as ≥ 15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic diameter and clinical response as a sustained improvement of at least one NYHA functional class. Renal dysfunction was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) below 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. RESULTS: Renal dysfunction was present in 34.7%. Renal dysfunction was not an independent predictor of echocardiographic response (OR 1.109, 95% CI 0.713-1.725, p 0.646) nor clinical response (OR 1.003; 95% CI 0.997-1.010; p 0.324). During follow-up (mean 55.2 ± 32 months), patients with eGFR < 60mL/min/1.73 m2 had higher overall mortality (HR 4.902, 95% CI 1.118-21.482, p 0.035). However, clinical response in patients with renal dysfunction was independently associated with better long-term survival (HR 0.236, 95% CI 0.073-0.767, p 0.016). Renal function was significantly improved in patients who respond to CRT (ΔeGFR + 5.5 mL/min/1.73 m2 at baseline vs. follow-up, p 0.049), while this was not evident in nonresponders. Improvements in eGFR of at least 10 mL/min/1.73 m2 were associated with improved survival in renal dysfunction patients (log-rank p 0.036). CONCLUSION: Renal dysfunction was associated with higher long-term mortality in CRT patients, though, it did not influence echocardiographic nor functional response. Despite worse overall prognosis, renal dysfunction patients who are responders showed long-term survival benefit and improvement in renal function following CRT.
PURPOSE:Renal dysfunction is often associated with chronic heart failure, leading to increased morbi-mortality. However, data regarding these patients after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is sparse. We sought to evaluate response and long-term mortality in patients with heart failure and renal dysfunction and assess renal improvement after CRT. METHODS: We analyzed 178 consecutive patients who underwent successful CRT device implantation (age 64 ± 11 years; 69% male; 92% in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class ≥ III; 34% with ischemic cardiomyopathy). Echocardiographic response was defined as ≥ 15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic diameter and clinical response as a sustained improvement of at least one NYHA functional class. Renal dysfunction was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) below 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. RESULTS:Renal dysfunction was present in 34.7%. Renal dysfunction was not an independent predictor of echocardiographic response (OR 1.109, 95% CI 0.713-1.725, p 0.646) nor clinical response (OR 1.003; 95% CI 0.997-1.010; p 0.324). During follow-up (mean 55.2 ± 32 months), patients with eGFR < 60mL/min/1.73 m2 had higher overall mortality (HR 4.902, 95% CI 1.118-21.482, p 0.035). However, clinical response in patients with renal dysfunction was independently associated with better long-term survival (HR 0.236, 95% CI 0.073-0.767, p 0.016). Renal function was significantly improved in patients who respond to CRT (ΔeGFR + 5.5 mL/min/1.73 m2 at baseline vs. follow-up, p 0.049), while this was not evident in nonresponders. Improvements in eGFR of at least 10 mL/min/1.73 m2 were associated with improved survival in renal dysfunctionpatients (log-rank p 0.036). CONCLUSION:Renal dysfunction was associated with higher long-term mortality in CRT patients, though, it did not influence echocardiographic nor functional response. Despite worse overall prognosis, renal dysfunctionpatients who are responders showed long-term survival benefit and improvement in renal function following CRT.
Authors: Gaurav Singal; Gaurav A Upadhyay; Rasmus Borgquist; Daniel J Friedman; Neal A Chatterjee; Jagdesh Kandala; Mi Young Park; Mary Orencole; George W Dec; Michael H Picard; Jagmeet P Singh; Theofanie Mela Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Usama A Daimee; Arthur J Moss; Yitschak Biton; Scott D Solomon; Helmut U Klein; Scott McNitt; Bronislava Polonsky; Wojciech Zareba; Ilan Goldenberg; Valentina Kutyifa Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Muthiah Vaduganathan; Stephen J Greene; Javed Butler; Hani N Sabbah; Eduard Shantsila; Gregory Y H Lip; Mihai Gheorghiade Journal: Heart Fail Rev Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 4.214
Authors: André Viveiros Monteiro; Mário Martins Oliveira; Pedro Silva Cunha; Manuel Nogueira da Silva; Joana Feliciano; Luísa Branco; Pedro Rio; Ricardo Pimenta; Ana Sofia Delgado; Rui Cruz Ferreira Journal: Rev Port Cardiol Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 1.374
Authors: Stefan Bogdan; Robert Klempfner; Avi Sabbag; David Luria; Osnat Gurevitz; David Bar-Lev; Igor Lipchenca; Eyal Nof; Rafael Kuperstein; Ilan Goldenberg; Michael Eldar; Michael Glikson; Roy Beinart Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2014-07-23
Authors: Hans L Hillege; Dorothea Nitsch; Marc A Pfeffer; Karl Swedberg; John J V McMurray; Salim Yusuf; Christopher B Granger; Eric L Michelson; Jan Ostergren; Jan Hein Cornel; Dick de Zeeuw; Stuart Pocock; Dirk J van Veldhuisen Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-02-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Agnieszka Gala-Błądzińska; Janusz Romanek; Danuta Mazur; Tomasz Stepek; Marcin Braun; Piotr Szafarz; Marcin Chlebuś; Andrzej Przybylski Journal: Cardiol Res Pract Date: 2020-03-21 Impact factor: 1.866