Camilla Normand1,2, Cecilia Linde3, Nigussie Bogale1, Carina Blomström-Lundqvist4, Angelo Auricchio5, Christoph Stellbrink6, Klaus K Witte7, Wilfried Mullens8,9, Christian Sticherling10, Germanas Marinskis11, Elena Sciaraffia4, Giorgi Papiashvili12, Svetoslav Iovev13, Kenneth Dickstein1,2. 1. Cardiology Division, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway. 2. Institute of Internal Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. 3. Heart and Vascular Theme, Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Department of Medical Science and Cardiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 5. Clinical Electrophysiology Unit, Fondazione Cardiocentro Ticino, Lugano, Switzerland. 6. Department of Cardiology, Klinikum Bielefeld, Germany. 7. Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds. 8. Department of Cardiology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium. 9. Biomedical Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium. 10. University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Switzerland. 11. Clinic of Heart Diseases, Vilnius University, Lithuania. 12. Arrhythmia Department, Helsicore - Israeli-Georgian Medical Research Clinic, Tbilisi, Georgia. 13. Cardiostimulation and Electrophysiology sector at "St. Ekaterina" University Multi-profile Hospital for Active Treatment, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Abstract
AIMS: The decision to implant a cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker (CRT-P) or a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) may be challenging. There are no clear guideline recommendations as no randomized study of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been designed to compare the effects of CRT-P with those of CRT-D on patients' outcomes. In the CRT Survey II, we studied patient and implantation centre characteristics associated with the choice of CRT-P vs. CRT-D. METHODS AND RESULTS: Clinical practice data from 10 692 patients undergoing CRT implantation of whom 7467 (70%) patients received a CRT-D and 3225 (30%) received a CRT-P across 42 ESC countries were collected and analysed between October 2015 and January 2017. Factors favouring the selection of CRT-P implantation included age >75 years, female gender, non-ischaemic heart failure (HF) aetiology, New York Heart Association functional Class III/IV symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction >25%, atrial fibrillation, atrioventricular (AV) block II/III, and implantation in a university hospital. CONCLUSION: In a large cohort from the CRT Survey II, we found that patients allocated to receive CRT-P exhibited particular phenotypes with more symptomatic HF, more frequent comorbidities, advanced age, female gender, non-ischaemic HF aetiology, atrial fibrillation, and evidence of AV block. There were substantial differences in the proportion of patients allocated to receive CRT-P vs. CRT-D between countries. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: The decision to implant a cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker (CRT-P) or a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) may be challenging. There are no clear guideline recommendations as no randomized study of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been designed to compare the effects of CRT-P with those of CRT-D on patients' outcomes. In the CRT Survey II, we studied patient and implantation centre characteristics associated with the choice of CRT-P vs. CRT-D. METHODS AND RESULTS: Clinical practice data from 10 692 patients undergoing CRT implantation of whom 7467 (70%) patients received a CRT-D and 3225 (30%) received a CRT-P across 42 ESC countries were collected and analysed between October 2015 and January 2017. Factors favouring the selection of CRT-P implantation included age >75 years, female gender, non-ischaemic heart failure (HF) aetiology, New York Heart Association functional Class III/IV symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction >25%, atrial fibrillation, atrioventricular (AV) block II/III, and implantation in a university hospital. CONCLUSION: In a large cohort from the CRT Survey II, we found that patients allocated to receive CRT-P exhibited particular phenotypes with more symptomatic HF, more frequent comorbidities, advanced age, female gender, non-ischaemic HF aetiology, atrial fibrillation, and evidence of AV block. There were substantial differences in the proportion of patients allocated to receive CRT-P vs. CRT-D between countries. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Milos Taborsky; Tomas Skala; Renata Aiglova; Marian Fedorco; Josef Kautzner; Tomas Jandik; Vlastimil Vancura; Ales Linhart; Martin Valek; Miloslav Novak; Petr Kala; Rostislav Polasek; Tomas Roubicek; Alexandr Schee; Gerhard Hindricks; Nikolaos Dagres; Robert Hatala; Jiri Jarkovsky Journal: Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 1.245
Authors: Moritz Hadwiger; Nikolaos Dagres; Janina Haug; Michael Wolf; Ursula Marschall; Jan Tijssen; Alexander Katalinic; Fabian Simon Frielitz; Gerhard Hindricks Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 35.855